Cookies

We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse the International Law Office website, we will assume you are happy to receive all of our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Matheson Ormsby Prentice

Supreme Court Allows Appeal on Examiner Appointment

Newsletters

03 March 2009

Litigation Ireland


In the first case on examinership to come before it in over 10 years, the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal against a High Court order refusing the petition of Gallium Limited (trading as the First Equity Group) for the appointment of an examiner and appointed Kieran Wallace of KPMG as examiner of the company. The Supreme Court delivered its reasoned judgment on February 3 2009.

Contrary to expectations, and despite having the opportunity to do so, the judgment provides no detailed guidance in relation to what must be contained in the independent accountant's report. While the judgment has not formally raised the bar in relation to the requirements of the independent accountant's report, it is possible, in light of comments made by the court at the hearing, that the bar may be raised in the future. If this happens, it is likely that the independent accountant will have to include more detail than has hitherto been the practice in relation to the basis of his or her conclusions.

The prudent approach would be to ensure that the court can be satisfied that the conditions identified by the independent accountant as being essential for the survival of the company (whether as regards to the internal management and controls of the company or otherwise) are achievable and, where possible, that the independent accountant's report gives evidence as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of those conditions being satisfied.

In the present case, in allowing the appeal against the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court was influenced by additional evidence which was placed before it on appeal and the fact that no creditors were opposing the petition.

In line with previous case law, the judgment notes the following:

  • The onus of proof is on the petitioner to establish that there is a reasonable prospect of the survival of the company and the whole or part of its undertaking as a going concern.
  • A reasonable prospect of survival test does not require probability of survival to be established.
  • Even if the petitioner establishes that there is a reasonable prospect of survival, the court retains discretion in relation to the appointment of an examiner and can refuse applications.
  • In exercising its discretion, the court should take into account all relevant interests (including the interests of creditors and employees), and not just the fact that the independent accountant has concluded that examinership would be more advantageous than a winding-up of the company to the members or creditors as a whole.

For further information on this topic please contact Tony O'Grady at Matheson Ormsby Prentice by telephone (+353 1 232 2000) or by fax (+353 1 232 3333) or by email (tony.ogrady@mop.ie).

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Author

Tony O'Grady

Tony O'Grady

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Recent rulings on state aid
  • Defender v HSBC: impact of settling with one concurrent wrongdoer
  • Delay in professional negligence claims
  • Discovery process reaches crisis point: Supreme Court to consider reform

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2019 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *