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.  

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

Supreme Court clarifies law in relation to repudiation of leases (Re Linen Supply Ireland Ltd, 10 December 2009)

The Supreme Court has recently clarified the law in relation to a company’s ability to repudiate/disclaim leases during the course of an examinership. Recent decisions of the High Court, including the O’Brien’s Sandwich Bar decision had created uncertainty in this area.

Last week the Supreme Court overturned Mr Justice McGovern's recent decision in the Linen Supply of Ireland examinership that the current legislation does not permit the repudiation of leases in an examinership. The case has now been remitted back to the High Court to consider whether, in the specific case before it, the leases ought to be repudiated in order for a scheme of arrangement to be formulated.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Matter of Linen Supply of Ireland Limited (the “Company”) and the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (as amended), the Court finally clarified the law in relation to a company’s ability to repudiate and/or disclaim leases during the course of an examinership process. Earlier decisions of the High Court, including quite recently the O’Brien’s Sandwich Bar decision, had created uncertainty in this area.

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.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that both the debtor and any counterparty performing the legal act have knowledge of prejudice to creditors if, at the time of performing the legal act, the bankruptcy of the debtor and a shortfall in the bankruptcy estate is foreseeable. This judgment confirms the Supreme Court's decision of 22 December 2009 (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI8493).

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a party who purchases and accepts the transfer of moveable assets subject to a retention of title acquires a right of conditional ownership with respect to those moveable assets and has the power to create an unconditional right of pledge over such right of conditional ownership.

The Supreme Court recently issued an interesting ruling in an insolvency case where receivables that had been validly pledged to a bank were unlawfully collected by a bankruptcy trustee. The question was whether the damages claim of the bank against the bankrupt estate would take priority over the foreclosure and settlement costs, including the bankruptcy trustee’s salary.

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.