Corporate Enforcement Authority Issues Helpful Guidance Note

The Preventative Restructuring Directive

In July 2022, the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations) transposed the requirements of EU Directive 2019/1023 (the Preventative Restructuring Directive) into Irish law.

Certain of the consequential amendments to the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) relate to the duties and responsibilities that directors of companies have in circumstances of financial difficulty and/or insolvency.

Corporate insolvency numbers continued to appear artificially low in 2022. The expectation is that they will rise once businesses need to deal with the aftermath of Government pandemic supports and, in particular, start to pay warehoused taxes.

Some 12 months ago, following the publication of that year’s Courts Service Annual Report, we suggested that 2020 would be remembered as a year like none other. However, a year later, the publication of the Courts Service Annual Report for 2021 (Report) describes a year of legal activity, in a debt recovery context, that very closely mirrors 2020.

The European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 were signed on 27 July 2022 to give effect to an EU directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1023). The Directive aims to ensure that member states have in place effective frameworks for early warning and prevention of corporate insolvency.

The High Court recently rescinded an order adjudicating a debtor bankrupt in Ireland because the debtor failed to disclose material facts to the Court in his application for bankruptcy. In doing so, the Court established a duty of full disclosure that debtors must comply with when seeking to be adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland.

This decision will be welcomed by creditors where there is a concern that a debtor may seek to relocate from other EU member states to Ireland to avail of Ireland’s comparatively benign bankruptcy regime.

Background

The High Court has held that disclosure of debts and undertakings given to the Circuit Court in seeking a protective certificate for a personal insolvency arrangement can be relied on in other proceedings.

Background

The McLaughlins were engaged in a long running saga of litigation with Bank of Scotland plc (“BOS”) and, after a loan sale, Ennis Property Finance Limited (“Ennis”).

In 2016 they issued High Court proceedings against Ennis and Tom Kavanagh (the “Plenary Proceedings”).

As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

The Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) was commenced on Tuesday 7 December. Now that the process is available we set out some practical considerations for companies and creditors.

SCARP