In the matter of Birchport Limited (under the protection of the Court) and in the matter of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990

Liquidators will welcome the recent decision of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to reduce their reporting requirement in cases where a decision has been definitively made either to relieve or not relieve them of their statutory obligation to take restriction proceedings against a company's directors.

By order dated 20 January 2009, the Supreme Court, in the first case on examinership to come before it in over 10 years, allowed an appeal against the order of the High Court dated 13 January 2009 (McGovern J) which refused the petition of Gallium Limited (trading as the First Equity Group) (under the protection of the Court) for the appointment of an examiner and appointed Mr Kieran Wallace of KPMG as examiner of the Company. The Supreme Court delivered its reasoned judgment on 3 February 2009.  

These are hard times for business. In an era of falling asset values and tight trading conditions, some firms may be facing paper losses or technical insolvency. In the fight for survival, applying for examinership is one way they can avoid being forced into a 'fire sale' of their assets. But, as Andrew Gill explains, timing is critical.

Supreme Court Judgment (ex tempore), 20 February 2009

A return of no goods (nulla bona) no longer required for issue of bankruptcy summons

A decision of the High Court, affirming a rule of practice which required a return of no goods (or a good reason for the absence of same) before it would issue a bankruptcy summons to a creditor, has been successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.  

BACKGROUND

The Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) provides the statutory framework for petitioning the High Court for the appointment of an examiner to a company and providing the company concerned with a certain level of protection from its creditors. In practice, a significant issue which often arises is the enforceability of the provisions of a guarantee in the context of an examinership. The purpose of this article is briefly to look at the enforceability of a guarantee both during the period of protection and once it ends.  

DURING THE EXAMINERSHIP

The economic turbulence stirred up by our most recent credit crunch has thrown up a myriad of difficult legal questions for financiers everywhere. This anxious economic environment which has restrained the financial independence of many Irish companies from their financiers is fraught with legal conundrums.

Workout Agreements

Under the Companies Acts, the liquidator of every insolvent company is obliged to bring a court application to have the insolvent company’s directors restricted from acting as director or secretary of any other company for a period of five years unless that other company has a paid-up share capital of approximately €63,500. The relevant provision of the Companies Acts (Section 150) applies to any person who was a director of the insolvent company either at the date of or within 12 months of the start of the company’s winding-up. Section 150 also applies to shadow directors.

INTRODUCTION

Many practitioners may not think of stamp duty as a particular risk when taking on a liquidation or a receivership and there is limited published guidance on the topic. Against a background of an increasing number of business failures including companies operating in property development it is likely that liquidators and receivers will be faced with stamp duty issues on a more frequent basis. The purpose of this article is to identify some areas where practitioners may encounter stamp duty issues.

PROOF OF TITLE

The first anniversary of the credit crunch passed in recent weeks and the economic turbulence in this country has been reflected in the sharp increase in the number of insolvencies over the past 12 months.