Insolvency news

From the Professional Accountancy team…... The Irish Companies Office has confirmed recently that it plans to start prosecuting liquidators for non-filing offences before the end of 2026. We understand that  prosecutions will be preceded by a publicity campaign to afford offending liquidators the opportunity to get their filings up to date. The forms in question are forms E3 and E4. The  form E3 is an account of the liquidator’s acts and dealings where the liquidation is not completed within 12 months. The form E4 is the liquidator’s statement of account under section 681 of the Companies Act 2014. Failure to comply makes the liquidator guilty of a category 3 offence. That is, liable on summary conviction, to a class A fine (up to € 5,000) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.   This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.  

The Institute’s Insolvency Committee has recently published Technical Alert 01 2026 Control of Cases for Insolvency Practitioners.  This guidance paper notes that insolvency appointments are taken in a personal capacity by Insolvency Practitioners. It discusses decision making, managing risk, delegation and control of appointments.

From the Professional Accountancy team…... The Institute held three in-person events in early March 2026 in Cork, Galway and Dublin. Sarah Jane O’Keeffe, Partner in Azets, and Derek Wilson, former inspector in the Institute presented at the well-attended events and provided attendees with great practical examples. Attendees were given a comprehensive overview of the Creditors Voluntary Liquidation Handbook  published last year to assist Liquidators in complying with legislative and Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP)  requirements when conducting statutory meetings, reporting to creditors and approval of remuneration. The sessions also covered compliance matters and potential issues and problems that can arise and how to avoid or best navigate these.  Attendees were also reminded of the resource available from the Corporate Enforcement Authority the form of the Liquidator’s report on conduct of directors in a winding up of an insolvent company. Finally, readers are reminded to check out the Professional Accountancy Team’s Technical Hub which includes a dedicated Insolvency section and to keep up to date with other technical material also. This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.  

The Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA) has recently highlighted its Information Note on circumstances leading to disqualification under the Companies Act 2014 and the associated consequences.  The Information Note outlines the two primary reasons in which the disqualification of a company director arises: in the context of a liquidator's report on the conduct of the directors of the insolvency companies under section 682 of the Act;  in the context of the CEA, or others, making applications to the High Court under section 842 of the Act.  The Information Note is available to read in full here.  

From the Professional Accountancy team…... Update of 16 July 2025 :the High Court put a stay on the restriction order for four months to give the directors time to organise their affairs. It is not yet clear if the directors will appeal the decision to restrict them . Background In the  case of Downtul Limited (in liquidation ) Patrick O'Connell, Ciaran Butler and Colum Butler the liquidator of Downtul Limited (“Downtul”) sought to have two directors (the Respondents) restricted for a period of 5 years from acting as director or secretary of a company. Downtul entered a lease (“Lease”) with Stephen Court Limited (landlord) in respect of a property from which a Starbucks outlet was operated. A separate related company (Atercin Liffey Unlimited Company, “Atercin”) operated the Starbucks. Downtul did not occupy or use the leased property and had no income, or means to generate income, to discharge the liabilities arising under the Lease, including rent. There was also no evidence of any enforceable mechanism for Downtul to recover monies from Atercin to meet its liabilities. Restriction of director -acting honestly & responsibly The case established that Downtul bore the liability and burden of the Lease. The separate related company Atercin occupied and traded from the property and earned revenue from that trade. At all times since the Lease was entered, Atercin and not Downtul had occupied the Property and operated the coffee shop throughout the term of the Lease.  There was no evidence of any agreement or consideration being given to the rights of Downtul. In allowing Downtul to enter and maintain these arrangements, and in failing to ensure an enforceable mechanism by which Downtul could obtain the funds necessary to discharge its liabilities as they fell due or otherwise protect its position, the Respondents failed to demonstrate responsible conduct with regard to the interests of Downtul as a separate legal entity within the Group. Mainly for the above reasons the judge was not satisfied the respondents has acted responsibly in conducting the affairs of Downtul. It was noted that a finding of illegality or unlawfulness is not required to restrict a director under S819. the fact that a transaction is not unlawful does not mean it is not relevant to assessing a director’s honesty or responsibility. The judge also said that the failure to keep proper accounting records, the omission of material disclosures from the financial statements and the failure to minute a single board meeting since 2017 are also – independently of her primary findings of irresponsibility – separate grounds on which she was not satisfied that the Respondents acted responsibly. As she was not satisfied that the Respondents acted responsibly with regard to the conduct of the affairs of Downtul the judge said she was mandated by section 819(2) to make the declaration of restriction sought by the Liquidator.   Accounting records and materiality/disclosure/corporate governance The judgement stated that there were no accounting records, disclosures in financial statements, or board minutes which even refer to the apparent arrangements between Downtul and Atercin. The financial statements make no reference to the Lease or to the receipt of monies from Atercin to pay the rent and other charges associated with the Starbucks property. This the court said underlines the lack of transparency in relation to the affairs of Downtul. Company accounts and records should contain a true and fair view of the company’s financial position. The case also considered the issue of disclosure of material transactions under FRS 102(1A) to ensure a “true and fair view” is given of the company’s financial position. The judge said that a responsible view of Downtul’s financial position would lead to the conclusion that the Lease and issues that arose with the landlord (rent suspension, legal proceedings) are matters that would be material for a user of the financial statements. The evidence and perspective of the Liquidator that these items collectively are material and significant for Downtul was accepted by the court. The judge found in the particular circumstances of Downtul, and the specific evidence adduced, the books that were kept were not sufficient to demonstrate a responsible approach by the Respondents to the maintenance of accounting records such as to enable compliance with section 282 of the Companies Act 2014. the fact that it is a small company or a company with limited activity does not provide an excuse or justification for not maintaining even a minimum record of Downtul’s transactions (quite apart from the more fundamental issues with Downtul’s interaction with Atercin). Finally, on the corporate governance side the judge noted that the Respondents chose to become directors of more than 170 and more than 200 companies respectively. Being a director of so many companies brings with it onerous and important responsibilities. She was not suggesting this is a light task when the Respondents are responsible for some 150- 200 companies, but it was the Respondents who made the decision to incorporate and direct the affairs of such a significant number of companies. The fact they have so burdened themselves cannot absolve them of the obligation to separately discharge the duties incumbent on them in each of those roles. The only question is whether they acted responsibly with regard to the affairs of Downtul. In the absence of any record of a meeting or decision with regard to Downtul from 2017 onwards, she simply could not be, and was not, satisfied in that respect. Conclusion The judgment contains an extensive examination of the grounds for restricting a director under section 819 of Companies Act 2014. There are other useful aspects to this judgment also, including for example an account of the relevant duties of expert witnesses. Readers should note that the judge found that the respondents discharged the burden of showing they acted honestly. However, because she found they had not acted responsibly this was enough to trigger the operation of the restriction provisions in section 819. It should also be noted that the directors have been restricted for 5 years, not disqualified. Restricted means that the person cannot act as a company director (or secretary) for 5 years unless the company of which they wish to be director has an allotted share capital of €100,000 (in the case of companies other than PLCs) with each allotted share to be paid for in cash. Readers can find out more about disqualification of directors in the Corporate Enforcement Authority’s very useful note on the subject CEA Information Note 2024/1 -Circumstances leading to disqualification under the Companies Act 2014 and the associated consequences. This information is provided as resources and information only and nothing in these pages purports to provide professional advice or definitive legal interpretation(s) or opinion(s) on the applicable legislation or legal or other matters referred to in the pages. If the reader is in doubt on any matter in this complex area further legal or other advice must be obtained. While every reasonable care has been taken by the Institute in the preparation of these pages, we do not guarantee the accuracy or veracity of any resource, guidance, information or opinion, or the appropriateness, suitability or applicability of any practice or procedure contained therein. The Institute is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of the resources or information contained in these pages.                    

The CCAB-I Insolvency Committee has today published a new Creditors Voluntary Liquidation Statutory Meeting Handbook. The purpose of the Creditors Voluntary Liquidation (CVL) Statutory Meeting Handbook is to aid directors in the pre-appointment period and insolvency professionals in the post appointment period. This document provides a compendium of statutory meeting templates and guidance around the various meetings during the course of a CVL. It also assists Liquidators in complying with legislative and SIP requirements when conducting statutory meetings, reporting to creditors and approval of remuneration. Additionally, on 10 June, Derek Wilson, a licensed insolvency practitioner and experienced insolvency monitor, and Sarah-Jane O’Keeffe, director at Azets, along with Chartered Accountants Ireland are hosting a free webinar which will provide an overview of best practice and introduce the new Creditor Voluntary Liquidation workbook. To register for this free webinar, click here.  

The CCAB-I Insolvency Committee has recently published Technical Alert 03/2024 Succession Planning for Insolvency Practitioners. Insolvency appointments are taken in a personal capacity by an Insolvency Practitioner, who has an obligation to ensure that cases are properly managed at all times, and to have appropriate contingency arrangements in place to cover a change in the Insolvency Practitioner’s circumstances. This Technical Alert maps out a succession plan for an Insolvency Practitioner and covers some of the high-level considerations and discussion points to be considered by Insolvency Practitioners.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has recently confirmed changes to the procedure for notifying the Minister of proposed collective redundancies, pursuant to section 12 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977, as amended. These changes took effect from 1 July 2024 and are on foot of: Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 S.I. 324 of 2024: Protection of Employment Act 1977 (Notification of Proposed Collective Redundancies) Regulations 2024 The following is a summary of the changes: All collective redundancies must be notified to the Minister, including where the employer is insolvent. This must be done by the employer or a responsible person (a Liquidator, Provisional Liquidator, Receiver or other court-appointed officer where the employer’s business is being wound up). Notifications may now be submitted electronically to minister@enterprise.gov.ie, as well as by registered post or hand delivery. Additional information is now required in a notification including the contact details of the employer or responsible person; and if the employer is a company, its CRO number. A new optional template form (Form CRN1) has been published to assist employers and responsible persons in complying with their obligations when notifying the Minister. Further information is available on Workplace Relations Commission webpage.

The Institute recently hosted a webinar on the Small Companies Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) - Practical Issues. This discussion with David Swinburne and Philip Maher of Mazars included how to prepare for a SCARP, what to look out for and key matters to be aware of when considering the process. There was also discussion around some practical issues including how SCARP is working in practice, dealing with creditors and excludable creditors.  The recording is available here. 

The CCAB-I Insolvency Committee has today published Technical Alert 04/2021 Register of Beneficial Ownership of Companies and Industrial Provident Societies – Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners. This Technical Alert highlights the features of the Central Register of Beneficial Ownership of Companies and Industrial and Provident Societies which are of particular importance to insolvency practitioners.  This guidance has been prepared on a practical basis and is intended to be of a practical nature.  This Technical Alert is available on our website.