In the matter of Vantive Holdings & ors and in the matter of the Companies Acts 1963 - 2006 [2009] IESC 68 (11 August 2009)

In the matter of Vantive Holdings & ors and in the matter of the Companies Acts 1963 - 2006 [2009] IESC 68 (11 August 2009)

The petitioner failed to provide objective evidence or material to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable prospect of survival as a going concern. There was no commitment from banks to future funding, no objective analysis of the property market or its likely recovery, and the business plan was not substantiated by independent or current valuations. The statutory threshold for appointment of an examiner was not met.

Citation
[2009] IESC 68
Parties
Petitioner: Vantive Holdings; Petitioner: Villeer Developments; Petitioner: Peytor Developments; Petitioner: Carragh Enterprises Limited; Petitioner: Parlez International Limited; Petitioner: Morston Investments Limited; Respondent: ACC Bank plc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Appoint Examiner
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Examinership, Appointment of Examiner, Reasonable Prospect of Survival, Companies (amendment) Act 1990, Corporate Insolvency, Business Rescue
Insolvency Company Law Examinership Appointment of Examiner Reasonable Prospect of Survival Companies (amendment) Act 1990 Corporate Insolvency Business Rescue

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vantive Holdings

Petitioner

Villeer Developments

Petitioner

Peytor Developments

Petitioner

Carragh Enterprises Limited

Petitioner

Parlez International Limited

Petitioner

Morston Investments Limited

Petitioner

ACC Bank plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Appoint Examiner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner and related companies demonstrated a reasonable prospect of survival as a going concern under s.2 of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to appoint an examiner and dismissing the petition

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to provide objective evidence or material to satisfy the Court that there was a reasonable prospect of survival as a going concern. There was no commitment from banks to future funding, no objective analysis of the property market or its likely recovery, and the business plan was not substantiated by independent or current valuations. The statutory threshold for appointment of an examiner was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to appoint examiner
  • Petition dismissed