Be careful when you sell intellectual property (“IP”) in return for future royalty payments. You may think your contract is airtight, guaranteeing you a future annuity on the sales of product relating to your IP, but that might not be the case if your buyer files for bankruptcy.
The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) recently issued new guidance outlining the implications of COVID-19 on its insolvency related functions. The statement provides an update on how they will assess the actions of directors of companies which have gone or will go into an insolvent liquidation as a consequence of the pandemic. The guidance is undoubtedly a welcome publication during this difficult time for almost all businesses.
Background
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
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.
This is often a question for faced by office-holders of insolvent companies when investigating a company’s affairs, and more of a concern for former directors and shareholders when potentially facing a claim for the return of unlawful dividends or misfeasance.
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
TV rental business, Box Clever, was created as a joint venture between Granada (now ITV) and Thorn (now Carmelite).
The Box Clever business was later sold and administrative receivers were subsequently appointed over Box Clever companies.
The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) issued Financial Support Directives (“FSDs”) against five ITV companies in relation to the Box Clever defined benefit pension scheme. ITV referred the determinations to the Upper Tribunal.