If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?

In a recent judgment the Irish High Court for the first time confirmed as “good law” in Ireland the approach taken by the English courts to the circumstances in which a transaction, documented as a sale of receivables, may be re-characterised as a secured loan. Invoice discounting, factoring and similar receivables financing products are important sources of working capital finance for SMEs and are increasingly a funding tool offered by alternative lenders.

Introduction

The Companies (Accounting) Act, 2017 (the Act) was signed into law by President Michael D. Higgins on 17 May 2017 and came into operation on 9 June 2017. Sections 92 and 98(d) of the Act provide clarity and certainty on the issue of whether the claim of the holder of a floating charge, once crystallised, ranks in priority to the claim of a preferential creditor following the High Court and the Supreme Court decisions of In the Matter of Re In the Matter of JD Brian Limited (In Liquidation) (the JD Brian case).[1]

English High Court places US company into Administration

On 7 October 2016 Ashfords' Restructuring and Insolvency Team, led by partner Alan Bennett, assisted the directors in securing an Administration order in respect of Ronin Development Corporation (the "Company").

The Company was incorporated in Princeton, New Jersey, in October 1986 under the New Jersey Business Corporation Act, and is a global marketing, consulting and research company.

In a number of recent cases, borrowers have produced a detailed forensic analysis of the accrual of interest on their accounts by lenders alleging that any error in the calculation of interest invalidates the demand made by the lender and any appointment of a receiver on foot thereof.

This update focusses upon two recent High Court decisions dealing with (respectively) the ability of the court to retrospectively extend court-appointed receiverships, and the issue of whether COMI had shifted to England for a German national seeking bankruptcy here.

Extension of court-appointed receiverships

The case of Bank of Ireland v (1) Edeneast (2) Cosgrove and (3) Maguire (17/09/2013) concerned an application by the bank to retrospectively continue and extend the appointment of a courtappointed receiver.

The facts:

An application had been made by Bank of Scotland Plc and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland (the Applicants) for a letter of request to be sent by the Royal Court of Jersey to the High Court of England and Wales in respect of four Jersey companies which were ultimate beneficial owners of English real estate.  

Introduction

Summary

In an insolvent winding up, preferential creditors are entitled to be paid first from assets subject to a charge which at the time of creation was floating, regardless of whether the floating charge has crystallised at the commencement of the winding up.