Whilst the power of a chairperson to exercise a casting vote at creditors’ meetings is a useful mechanism to resolve a deadlock in voting, it does not confer unconstrained discretion. The recent Glenfyne Appeal[1] provides valuable guidance as to the appropriate exercise of a casting vote and also serves as a reminder of the Court’s significant powers to review and reverse failed creditors’ resolutions due to the exercise of a casting vote.
In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.
The facts
Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.
In KSK Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1463 a liquidator sought directions from the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) at Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Hayes recently successfully defended a Liquidator in an action by a shareholder of a company to remove him in a long running complex liquidation of a company with foreign subsidiaries and assets.
Factual Background
In Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd trading as Clenergy [2020] FCAFC 5, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that:
On 16 April 2020 the Insolvency Committee of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies – Ireland issued guidance for insolvency practitioners in relation to the holding of meetings of creditors under Section 587 and other meetings of members and creditors during the COVID-19 pandemic by way of
The recent Supreme Court decision in ACC Loan Management v Mark Rickard and Gerard Rickard has confirmed that a judgment creditor may apply to court to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over future entitlements due to a judgment debtor, such as the EU Basic Payment Scheme (“BPS”).
The 30th anniversary of the examinership process in Ireland is approaching and it’s a good time to reflect on the development of the process, where it stands now in Irish commercial life and the alternatives that exist.
In the recent case of Re M.D.Y. Construction Limited [2018] IEHC 676, an Interim Examiner made an application pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court. Interestingly, the application was made before the Interim Examiner’s appointment had been confirmed by the Court.
Section 541 of the 2014 Act provides, inter alia, that the report of an Examiner shall be set down for approval by the Court as soon as may be after receipt of the report by the Court.
Since the introduction of The Companies Act 2014, directors have relied on the Summary Approval Procedure as a means of sanctioning certain activities that are otherwise prohibited.
While it has been a welcome development in simplifying financial transactions, directors need to be mindful of the appropriate steps to be taken so they are not leaving themselves open to committing an offence or being personally liable for the debts of a company.
Background