logo
Legal guides to rescue or liquidation

Legal guides to rescue or liquidation

Irish Examiner26-06-2025
Rising interest rates and patchy post-pandemic demand are driving more Irish companies into difficult territory.
When the balance sheet tips, four statutory routes exist: examinership, the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP), liquidation and receivership. Each route triggers a different playbook for owners, lenders and employees, yet the boundaries overlap. Choosing well and choosing early decides whether a firm re-emerges or disappears.
Shane Harron, partner at Dillon Eustace.
Shane Harron, partner, Restructuring, Insolvency and Commercial Litigation, Dillon Eustace, sketches the purpose of examinership: 'Examinership is a rescue mechanism for companies in financial distress that meet certain criteria. It is generally considered to be a successful and flexible process designed to allow companies to continue to survive difficult periods.' Court protection freezes creditor action for up to one hundred days while an independent examiner prepares a scheme of arrangement. Directors stay in charge day-to-day and work with the examiner on investment, cost cuts or debt write-downs.
SCARP offers similar breathing space to smaller companies but avoids court hearings.
David O'Connor, partner at BDO.
'Smaller companies will often prefer the newer SCARP process, because examinership is quite expensive,' says David O'Connor, partner with BDO, whose team prepares independent expert reports for both processes. The same insolvency practitioner acts from start to finish, which trims fees and shortens timelines.
In 2024, thirty businesses used SCARP to restructure, according to EY partner Alan Large.
Barbara Galvin, partner with William Fry.
At the opposite end sits liquidation. 'Liquidation marks the end of a company's life,' says Barbara Galvin, partner with William Fry. A liquidator takes control, sells assets and distributes the proceeds down a statutory waterfall. Solvent liquidations close in under a year, but insolvent cases, from IBRC to Treasury Holdings, can run for a decade when litigation clogs the pipeline.
Receivership is narrower again. Here, the secured lender, not the board, fires the starting gun.
'Receivership differs from examinership and liquidation in that it is a process initiated by a company's creditors to realise a secured debt,' Harron explains. Once the charged assets are sold and the lender repaid, the receiver's mandate ends, sometimes in weeks.
Speed and Scope
Examinership follows a strict clock: seventy days plus a possible thirty-day extension. During that moratorium, creditors cannot sue, appoint a receiver or seek liquidation. SCARP moves faster because it is out of court; the process adviser must file a rescue plan within forty-two days.
Liquidation moves only as quickly as asset sales, creditor claims, and disputes allow. Standard solvent cases average six to nine months, but complex insolvent estates stretch far longer. Receivership aligns with asset disposals and often completes within two years.
Control and creditor influence
Directors retain operational control in examinership and SCARP, yet they do not dictate outcomes. The examiner or process adviser groups creditors into classes, and a majority in at least one impaired class must vote for the scheme.
'Creditor negotiation forms a crucial part of the process,' Galvin says. Once the court, or in SCARP, the process adviser, confirms the plan, dissenting creditors are bound.
In liquidation, directors lose all authority on appointment. They also face forensic scrutiny of decisions taken in the run-up to collapse. Receivership sits between the two: directors may still trade the unencumbered parts of a business if the receiver is appointed over specific assets rather than the entire undertaking.
Director liability in the insolvency zone
Statute now requires Irish directors to prioritise creditor interests once insolvency is likely. Ignoring warning signs carries a personal cost.
'As soon as a company's directors become aware of its insolvency, they should take all necessary steps to preserve the assets of the company for the benefit of its creditors,' Harron says.
Liquidators must report to the Corporate Enforcement Authority and, unless excused, bring restriction proceedings against directors of insolvent firms. Sanctions range from a five-year restriction on acting as a director to full disqualification or personal liability for reckless trading.
'There is no statutory obligation to place an insolvent company into liquidation, but directors should only continue to trade where they believe on reasonable grounds that the company can survive,' Large says.
Cost and suitability
Examinership's court involvement adds expense. O'Connor sees boards hesitate when legal and advisory fees could top €300,000.
'You need to be of a certain size to justify going into the examinership,' he says, pointing out that smaller firms owe far less and cannot fund the process. SCARP cuts that hurdle because one practitioner fills the dual role of independent expert and process adviser, reducing duplication.
Despite the options, uptake among SMEs remains modest. 'The number of SMEs availing of SCARP and examinership is not very high,' Galvin says. She blames a lack of awareness and the stigma that any insolvency procedure equals failure. Large adds that many owners wait too long and erode the working capital needed for a viable rescue.
Outcomes in practice
History shows rescue can work. The Goodman Group examinership in 1990 restructured wartime debt and protected thousands of jobs in the beef industry. More recently, Big Mike's restaurant in Dublin used SCARP to prune debt and safeguard employment.
O'Connor's team provided the independent expert report for a nationwide food chain that entered examinership this month. 'There is a requirement for an independent expert to show that if this company goes into examinership, then there's a high probability it will succeed,' he explains. The court accepted the report and appointed an examiner, opening a path to protect what O'Connor calls 'potentially significant' jobs.
Large has watched investors step in after balance-sheet clean-ups. 'The process allows companies to continue with a clean balance sheet and facilitate new investments that are essential for safeguarding their future,' he says.
Choosing a path
No single test determines which option fits. Harron emphasises early diagnostic work: cash-flow modelling, creditor mapping and covenant reviews. Owners must weigh the probability of survival against liquidity, fixed-charge security and stakeholder appetite for compromise.
Galvin underscores timing: examinership and SCARP require enough cash to trade through the protection period. Liquidation or receivership may be unavoidable if working capital has already evaporated.
Creditors influence direction, too. A lender can pre-empt examinership by appointing a receiver the moment a covenant is breached. Conversely, a successful examinership can bind secured lenders if the courts are satisfied the scheme treats them fairly.
Practical steps before a crisis hits
Directors can shrink legal risk long before insolvency lawyers arrive. Harron recommends daily cash monitoring and tight board minutes that show decisions and advice taken. Galvin adds that accurate books and records are the best defence against subsequent restriction applications.
Large tells boards to scenario-model each pathway while funds are still available: comparing examinership, SCARP, and liquidation costs clarifies the trade-offs and underpins talks with creditors or investors.
O'Connor's experience is blunt. 'Sometimes a solution is, guys, you're at the end of the road, you need to go into liquidation,' he says, warning directors against compounding debt once insolvency is obvious.
The bottom line
Ireland's corporate insolvency framework offers genuine rescue tools alongside orderly termination routes. Examinership and SCARP can salvage viable enterprises if boards act quickly, secure fresh capital and engage constructively with creditors.
Liquidation and receivership close a chapter but still demand disciplined governance to avoid personal fallout. The legal pathway is never chosen in the courtroom; it is chosen months earlier in board meetings where directors either confront the numbers or flinch from them. In a tightening credit cycle, that distinction will decide which Irish businesses live to trade another day and which do not.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Spending slash planned for Budget 2026 over looming 30% US tariffs threat amid ‘significant job losses in Ireland' fears
Spending slash planned for Budget 2026 over looming 30% US tariffs threat amid ‘significant job losses in Ireland' fears

The Irish Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Irish Sun

Spending slash planned for Budget 2026 over looming 30% US tariffs threat amid ‘significant job losses in Ireland' fears

THE Government will cut spending in Budget 2026 due to the 'significant risk' of job losses caused by Donald Trump's tariffs. The Advertisement 2 The Government will cut spending in Budget 2026 due to Trump's tariffs Credit: Getty Images - Getty But on Saturday, Trump Tanaiste The EU plans retaliatory tariffs that will be imposed on American goods if the taxes do go ahead. An all-out EU-US trade war Advertisement Read more in News And the Public Expenditure Minister, Jack Chambers, warned a 30 per cent tariff could result in significant He said the Government will have to cut back on spending in the The "It would have a severe impact on growth, it could result in significant job losses and would really disrupt the international trading environment upon which the Irish economy is built. Advertisement Most read in Irish News 'That is a significant risk in the context of budgetary planning, and that's why fiscal restraint will be really important, particularly as we plan for Budget 2026. 'Within that, we need to see a moderation of current expenditure and also, we need to significantly address the infrastructure deficit.' President Trump previously claimed there is a major trade imbalance between the States and the EU and he wants more 'Trump's new tariffs are outrageous', slams EU lawmaker after Don slaps 30% on Brussels & it readies to fight back In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Trump warned Europe not to respond with tariffs of their own or he would hit back once again by jacking up his taxes. Advertisement He said: 'The European Union will allow complete, open market access to the United States, with no tariffs being charged to us, in an attempt to reduce the large trade deficit. 'If for any reason you decide to raise your tariffs and retaliate, then, whatever the number you chose to raise them by, will be added onto the 30 per cent that we charge." PREFERENCE IS CLEAR Taoiseach He said last week: 'While it has been clear that all options remain on the table, the EU has also been clear that our preference is for a negotiated solution that avoids escalation. That remains the case. Advertisement 'I hope that negotiations will continue in the weeks ahead and that they will be successful. 'The EU and the US should be partners, not rivals. In a true partnership, everyone wins. 'The EU negotiators continue to have my full support in this important work." 2 Jack Chambers warned a 30 per cent tariff could result in significant job losses Credit: Brian Lawless/PA Wire Advertisement

Butler brothers secure stay on order restricting them from acting as company directors
Butler brothers secure stay on order restricting them from acting as company directors

Irish Examiner

timean hour ago

  • Irish Examiner

Butler brothers secure stay on order restricting them from acting as company directors

Two brothers behind a number of high-profile Irish franchises — including several Starbucks cafes, TGI Fridays, Mao and Hard Rock Cafe — have secured a stay on a court order restricting them from acting as directors. In a judgment published last month, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill found Colum and Ciaran Butler failed to prove they acted responsibly in the operation of one of their companies, Downtul Ltd, which leased a premises at St Stephen's Green, Dublin, that operated as a Starbucks. Downtul was placed in voluntary liquidation in November 2022. The judge granted a declaration sought by Downtul liquidator Patrick O'Connell restricting the brothers from acting as company directors or secretaries for five years unless the company meets certain requirements set out in the Companies Act 2014. Such an order means that, for the Butler brothers to act as directors of a company during that five-year period, that company must have share capital of at least €100,000 paid up by shareholders — or €500,000 in the case of a public limited company. The judge had found the brothers did discharge the burden of showing they acted honestly in the operation of Downtul. Lawyers for the Butlers on Tuesday successfully applied for a stay on the order, after submitting their clients would require time to get their affairs in order. Brian McGuckian told the court his instructions were to seek a stay on the order for six months, for two reasons. He said he was firstly seeking the stay to allow the Butlers time to organise their affairs, noting Ciaran is the director of 134 companies, while Colum is the director of more than 170 companies. Mr McGuckian said there was a general practice of the court affording directors time to organise their affairs in the context of an order of this kind. He said he was also seeking a stay pending a possible appeal being brought against the High Court decision. Padraic Lyons SC, for the receiver, said there was an obvious distinction between the granting of a stay pending an appeal, and a stay to allow the directors to get their affairs in order. His side had received no correspondence on a potential appeal, and there were no draft grounds of appeal before the court. It was a matter for the directors to put before the court arguable grounds for appeal, he said. Mr Lyons agreed there should be a stay granted to allow the directors to organise their affairs, but submitted that six months was an excessive amount of time. Ms Justice Nessa Cahill said she would grant a stay of four months to allow the Butlers to organise their affairs. She said she was not granting the stay pending a possible appeal, but noted the granted stay will be the same terms had she acceded to the application for a stay pending appeal. It was a matter for the respondents if they wished to bring an applicant to appeal, she said.

New labels on alcohol about health risks to be pushed back until 2029
New labels on alcohol about health risks to be pushed back until 2029

Irish Independent

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Independent

New labels on alcohol about health risks to be pushed back until 2029

Ibec said the labels should be paused as they are hiking labelling costs by 30pc of alcoholic products. The lobby group previously accused the Department of Health of 'railroading' the law underpinning the new alcohol labels and said the Government is going on a 'solo run' by bringing the labels in. The Government previously signalled it would pause the labels due to the extra costs facing businesses already in light of new US tariffs. Plans to postpone the requirement for the new labels were indicated in a letter sent to members of the Government's trade forum by Tánaiste Simon Harris. Senior ministers Peter Burke and Martin Heydon asked their Fine Gael Cabinet colleague Health Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill to push back the roll out of the labels. Minister Carroll MacNeill will be the Minister tasked with signing the statutory instrument which will give impact to the new laws. But it is now expected they will not kick in until 2029. Under the new laws, labels on alcohol products will warn about the risk of liver disease and fatal cancers from alcohol consumption. The labels were supposed to roll out next May and will make Ireland the first country to have mandatory health warning labels on all alcoholic beverages. In his push for the labels to be delayed, Minister Heydon said he had concerns about the impact on 'jobs and investment'. ADVERTISEMENT 'The concerns I brought to the discussion were the economic issues which had been conveyed to us at an international level, especially from the US,' he said in a statement previously. 'This included the impact on jobs and investment. We have strong exports of Irish whiskey especially to the US. The Tánaiste previously told the Dáil the Government needs to 'consider' the timeline due to a 'very new trade environment'. Alcohol Action said it is "bizarre" the Government would delay rollout of the labels and warned on the impact this will have on the health of the public. 'No decision has been made yet on labelling and this is clearly yet another instance of the alcohol industry and their friends in government putting more pressure on the Taoiseach and Health Minister to turn their backs on public health," said the organisation's CEO Dr Sheila Gilheany. 'It is bizarre that the government should even contemplate delaying this measure which has been in planning for years. 'Any decision to delay the regulations has consequences, not least the 4,000 people who will receive a cancer diagnosis caused by alcohol and the multiple thousands of babies who will be born with FASD in the four years that a delay has been mooted for," she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store