Introduction

Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.

InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.

Overview

In the recent High Court decision of McInerney Homes Limited, the court has ruled for the first time that proposals for a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) entailing payment to a secured creditor of a written down sum in full satisfaction of its debt, could be approved. However, on the facts of the case the court held that the objecting secured creditors would be unfairly prejudiced if they were required to accept the sum proposed to be paid, and, accordingly, refused to approve the Scheme.

As part of the IMF/EU bailout, Ireland will need to put draft legislation before the Dail to facilitate the creation of a legal framework for dealing with financial institutions on the verge of collapse. This legal framework is known as a Special Resolution Regime (SRR).

Toward the end of 2009 the Republic of Ireland’s then government passed legislation which would lead to the creation of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). The role of NAMA was a simple one: to remove toxic debt from the books of the Irish banks to assist in attempts to revive the national economy. The security would be acquired at a discount and purchased with Government backed bonds. In the first phase of NAMA (focusing on mortgages and other secured facilities with a minimum value of £20m) over £80bn in toxic debts were acquired.

On 25 March 2011 the High Court delivered a judgment concluding that a notice of crystallisation served by a bank (who held fixed and floating charges) on three corporate borrowers shortly before they were placed into liquidation did not alter the order of priorities.

The rapid downturn in the economy means company directors are faced with new challenges, possibly on a greater scale and more complex than ever before. Directors are responsible for managing the affairs of a company, identifying risk and ensuring that there is a strategy and a system in place to deal with those risks.

Weak and inadequate management by the directors may contribute to a weak financial performance and can lead to damage to business reputation, adverse media attention and damage to the business itself.

In the current economic climate, many companies are facing the prospect of their business becoming insolvent.

From an employer’s, and indeed an insolvency practitioner’s perspective, the rights and obligations owing to employees of which they need to be aware depend on the nature of the insolvency and the terms of the contract of employment.

In this recession like no other, enforcement over complete and incomplete residential and other property developments is a common scenario faced by both bank and Insolvency Practitioner alike. The dilemma initially appears quite stark; Should the bank advance further monies to complete out developments in order to maximise realisations or sell the site "as is" to another developer but at a significantly discounted price? The purpose of this article is to consider the issues which warrant consideration before devising an enforcement strategy in relation to incomplete developments.

The intellectual property (IP) rights that protect key software, brands and technical processes can be amongst the most valuable assets of a company. But what happens to IP rights when a company becomes insolvent? What happens to the insolvent company's licences, and to its licensees who may have invested significant amounts of time and money in setting up manufacturing facilities to exploit the licensed technology or in advertising under a particular trade mark?