The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was enacted with the aim of throwing a lifeline to debtors, many of whom may be in arrears on mortgage loans secured against their principal private residence.

McCann FitzGerald acted for the Asia Pulp and Paper Group (“APP Group”) in the recent successful restructuring of over US$1 billion of debt.

In a first for the Irish restructuring market, the debt was restructured through a scheme of arrangement under section 676 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2014 (“Part 11 Scheme of Arrangement”). On 23 October 2019, the US Bankruptcy Court granted recognition of the scheme under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In a recent case involving a company that owned and operated a nursing home (Melbourne Health Care Limited), the Examiner was unable to formulate proposals for a Scheme of Arrangement within the 100 days allowed to do so. At a late stage of the process it became apparent that the preferred investor could not satisfy its lender’s conditions precedent to draw down the financed element of the investment within the period of protection. As a result, the examiner applied to the High Court for directions.

On 9 May 2019 the Supreme Court handed down the seminal judgment of ACC Loan Management Limited DAC v Mark Rickard and Gerard Rickard, which provides clarity on the question of when a receiver can be appointed by equitable execution.

Background

The High Court recently considered an application by creditors for directions calling upon a liquidator to reconsider advice he had provided in a report to the ODCE and to carry out further and more forensic investigation into the circumstances which led to the liquidation of the company.

Background

A recent decision of the Supreme Court to award legal costs against a director of an insolvent company demonstrates the Courts' approach to directors who do not act in good faith and seek to use litigation through the company for their own personal benefit.

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. In May 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ("UKJT"), a subsidiary of the UK's LawTech Delivery Panel, issued a consultation paper on the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts in English private law ("Consultation Paper"). In his foreword to the Consultation Paper, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales (the "Chancellor") commented that "perceived legal uncertainty" was the reason for some lack of confidence amongst market participants and investors in cryptoassets and smart contracts.¹

Background

The Applicant, Mr Stephen Wallace was a UK based Liquidator of Carna Meats (UK) Limited (the “Company”). He claimed that his investigations into the Company’s affairs has been impeded by a lack of books and records. The Respondent, Mr George Wallace, was the Company’s former bookkeeper based in Ireland and was identified as holding all of the records of the Company. Despite a number requests from the Liquidator, Mr Wallace did not produce the documents.

Introduction

Summary judgment refers to a process where judgment is given in a case at an early stage, without a full litigation process and without the need for a full trial.  It is confined to specific circumstances. A plaintiff can apply for summary judgment where a defendant has entered an appearance or delivered a defence.  Summary judgment is most commonly granted where the defendant has no bona fide defence to the claim made by the plaintiff. 

A company incorporated under the Companies Act has its own legal personality and can institute legal proceedings in its own name. However, difficulties can arise where proceedings are commenced on behalf of a company where this has not been properly authorised by the company. In addition, where a company is a party to proceedings, in the absence of certain limited exceptions, it must retain legal representation to act on its behalf.

Authority to Institute Proceedings

Directors of the Company