The Irish High Court (Court) has pierced the corporate veil in Powers -v- Greymountain Management Ltd [In Liquidation] & Ors [2022] IEHC 599, to hold passive resident directors and non-resident shadow directors personally liable for funds lost to investors as a result of fraud.

The Facts

The recent High Court judgment in Re CGL Realisations Limited (In Liquidation) in favour of Geoff Carton-Kelly as additional liquidator of failed electrical retailer Comet ordered the company’s former French parent, Darty, to pay over £100m to restore the preferential repayment of an intercompany loan owed to Darty in the run-up to Comet’s sale shortly before its insolvency. The additional liquidator was appointed in 2018 by the court specifically to investigate the circumstances of Comet’s sale in advance of its demise in 2012.

The COVID-19 Pandemic hit the travel industry hard. Borders were closed, airline fleets were grounded, travel bookings were cancelled, and travel agents were overwhelmed with customers wanting refunds.

Many travel agents closed their doors because travel bookings dried up.

STA Travel was one. Across 27 stores in Australia, STA Travel operated as a travel agent, booking travel for customers as agent for travel providers, mainly airlines and tour operators.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Fennell v Appelbe  [2022] IECA 160, upholding the decision in the High Court, appears at first glance to endorse a stricter approach to restriction proceedings with regard to non-executive directors.

On closer analysis however, it is clear that the judgment is very much fact specific and not inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Re Tralee Beef & Lamb Limited [2008] 3 IR 347 case and the decisions of the High Court in cases such as:

What is Illegal Phoenix Activity?

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) defines illegal phoenix activity as activity that occurs when a new company, for little or no value, continues the business of an existing company that has been liquidated or abandoned to avoid paying outstanding debts, including taxes, creditors and employee entitlements.

The restructuring Q&A provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of restructuring in Switzerland.

1.1 What formal insolvency proceedings are available in Switzerland? 

In an important decision to private credit lenders, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a make-whole premium for an unsecured creditor tied to future interest payments is the “functional equivalent of unmatured interest” and not recoverable under Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Committee of OpCo Unsecured Creditors (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.), No. 21-20008 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (“Ultra”). Ordinarily, the story ends here.

The Court’s decision in Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 642 is important because, for the first time in Australia, a Court has granted a creditor leave to bring a derivative action in the name of a company in liquidation against its liquidators. This case opens another significant gateway for creditors to seek redress for their losses.

Object

Liquidation involves the collection of the company's assets, the realisation of those assets and the distribution of the proceeds of their sale to the company's creditors.

Process of appointing liquidator

Bankruptcy & restructuring

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business - particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

1. Legislation and court system