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]

Since July 2011, lenders have lived with great uncertainty as to their statutory rights, particularly their right to obtain possession of a secured property by way of summary proceedings. This uncertainty arose as a result of the 2011 High Court decision in Start Mortgages Limited & Ors v Gunn and Ors[1] (the “Start Mortgages Case”).

In In re Kerr Aluminium Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2012] IEHC 386, the High Court dismissed an application by a liquidator that certain payments made by the company in favour of Bank of Ireland be deemed a fraudulent preference within the meaning of section 286 of the Companies Act 1963. The decision is a further reminder of the challenges liquidators face in establishing a dominant intention to prefer one creditor over another in fraudulent preference applications.

The high profile liquidation of Custom House Capital Limited (In Liquidation) continued in 2012. Following a successful exercise to reconcile and confirm the position regarding certain client assets, the liquidator of the company proposed applying a fee of 0.5% when transferring the assets to clients to cover the costs of the reconciliation exercise.

Amantiss Enterprises Limited and Wilbury Limited were placed into creditors’ voluntary liquidation in 1994. Following the appointment of a liquidator, proceedings were issued by the two companies, together with a third company, Framus Limited, against a multitude of defendants including CRH plc, Readymix plc and Kilsaran Concrete Products Limited, alleging breaches of competition law.

In two cases decided towards the end of 2012, the High Court applied reductions to the hourly charge out rate of staff members employed by the liquidator who had been promoted during the course of the liquidation.