In January 2011, the High Court refused to approve an examiner’s rescue plan (“Scheme of Arrangement”) for construction company McInerney Homes Limited (“McInerney”), on the basis that the Scheme of Arrangement was unfairly prejudicial to the secured creditors consisting of a Banking Syndicate of Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited, Bank of Ireland plc and KBC Bank plc (the “Banks”).

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.

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 was signed into law by the President on 2 August 2011.  The Act provides for certain provisions, concerning private security services, bankruptcy and family mediation services, to come into operation on such days as the Minister for Justice and Equality, by order, appoints. All other provisions of the Act came into force on 2 August.

The Act introduces a number of important reforms across a broad range of areas, including:

The claim against the liquidator was abandoned due to the fact that he was an insolvency practitioner and had no personal responsibility for the present state of the site and there was nothing to suggest that the “liquidator did anything wrong”.  What is involved in the concept of doing nothing wrong is not explained.  Interpreting the risk to liquidators in light of this case and the leading Irish Ispat case (in which a liquidator also escaped clean up costs), liquidators need to carefully consider what actions to take, or not to take, if it transpires that issues arise about unl

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.

The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.

The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:

In a series of cases the High Court has:

In January 2010 an interim examiner was appointed to Missford Limited, which operated the Residence Club, a private members club in St. Stephen’s Green.

In a written judgment on the costs and expenses of the interim examiner, the court held that the interim examiner “simply did more with the best of motives than his warrant permitted”. The court proceeded to refuse the interim examiner’s application for remuneration in respect of any work carried out in excess of his statutory powers.

In the matter of Cognotec Ltd (in receivership)

Section 60(14) provides that a transaction in breach of section 60 is voidable against any person who had notice of the facts which constitute the breach.

The company sought to void the debenture which secured the loan on the basis that section 60 had not been complied with and the receiver appointed on foot of the debenture brought a motion for directions.

The court held that:

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.

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.