It has been suggested that Ireland improperly transposed the Employer’s Insolvency Directive into Irish Law by adopting a definition of “insolvency” which requires an actual winding up order (or a resolution of voluntary winding up to be passed) before an employee can have access to the Insolvency Fund, a Government payment scheme which provides for the payment of certain employee entitlements, in the event of the insolvency of their employer.

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) recently published a consultation paper (CP69) on proposed changes to the Corporate Governance Code for Credit Institutions and Insurance Undertakings. The consultation period ends on 1 October 2013, following which, the CBI intends to publish the revised Code in December 2013. There will be a transitional period to allow institutions implement necessary amendments.

Notable proposed amendments to the Code include:

Chief Risk Officer (‘CRO’)

In the middle of the night back in February 2013 the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 (the IBRC Act) was passed by the Irish government. This Act allowed the Irish Minister for Finance to make a Special Liquidation Order winding up IBRC, being the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. As a consequence of that KPMG in Dublin were appointed as Special Liquidators of IBRC.

The Foley’s/O’Reilly’s bar saga, which played out over a nine month period ending in July 2013, resulted in numerous court applications, three written judgments of the High Court and the appointment at various stages of receivers, interim examiners, examiners and liquidators to the companies involved.

Receivership

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.

Waterside Management Company Limited v Brendan Kelly and Asta Kelly^[1]

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 (“the Act”) has been enacted. The Act addresses the unintended consequences arising from the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).

Summary