Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.

The Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2013 (the “Act”) was signed into law on 24 December 2013 and has introduced what has become colloquially referred to as “examinership-lite”, or what it is hoped will be a new SME-friendly examinership regime. Examinership is the legal mechanism by which an ailing but potentially viable company can be rescued. 

The Act introduces a number of amendments to existing company law legislation, the most significant of which alters the regime in respect of the role of the Circuit Court in the examinership process. 

Ireland’s new insolvency regime came into effect on 3 December 2013. The new regime revamps the existing bankruptcy laws and brings Ireland closer into line with our European neighbours.  It focuses on negotiating an arrangement with creditors where possible, with bankruptcy as a last resort.

124 members of the Element Six pension scheme are suing the trustees of the scheme in the Commercial Court for alleged breach of duty arising out of the decision to close the scheme with a significant deficit.  The members claim that the trustees breached their duty to the members by failing to demand that the employer fully fund the deficit in the scheme before wind up.  A number of general issues relating to the obligations of trustees were raised during the 3-week hearing of the case.

Background

On 24 December 2013 the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President.  The purpose of the legislation is to expedite a number of amendments to existing legislation pending the enactment of the Companies Bill.

Circuit Court Examinership

In the matter of Fuerta Limited, High Court, 22 January 2014

Judge: Mr. Justice Charleton

A recent decision of the High Court has highlighted the interesting area of law that applies when an application is made to wind up a company on the grounds that it is "just and equitable" to do so.

The manner in which creditors’ meetings are conducted can often be as significant as the actual outcome of the meeting.  A good example of this can be seen from the recent High Court decision in In re Mountview Foods Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2013] IEHC 125.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Jan O’Sullivan, TD, has announced that she is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation.  Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.

Section 222 of the Companies Acts 1963 provides that leave of the High Court must be obtained in order to bring or prosecute proceedings against a company which is the subject of a winding-up order.  In In re MJBCH Ltd: Mary Murphy [2013] IEHC 256, the High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to grant leave retrospectively under this section.

The High Court has granted a creditor’s petition to wind-up a company, notwithstanding the claim that the company could survive as a “going concern” following a restructuring, on the grounds that such a claim should have been advanced by way of application for examinership: In re Heatsolve Ltd [2013] IEHC 399.