SPECIAL ISSUE PREVENTIVE RESTRUCTURING 10. The PRD 2019 in Ireland: Minor changes to an already sophisticated regime

1. Introduction^[1]

Prior to the PRD 2019, Ireland already had in place a range of successful restructuring and insolvency processes, including a comprehensive preventive restructuring framework called 'examinership'. As a consequence, only minor amendments were required to the Companies Act 2014^[2] (the ‘Principal Act’) to transpose the mandatory provisions of the directive. The remaining optional articles of the PRD 2019 are set to be considered by the Irish legislature as part of a wider review of the examinership procedure at a later stage. This is part of the work programme set by the relevant Minister for the Company Law Review Group, specifically the Insolvency Committee of that group. This work will begin in late October 2023.^[3]

2. Overview of pre-existing Irish restructuring regime

The principal restructuring processes in Ireland, all of which were in existence prior to the transposition of the PRD 2019, are:

• Examinership: a court-supervised process available to companies that are either insolvent or likely to become insolvent and where there is a reasonable prospect of their survival. Similar to the US Chapter 11 procedure (and, to a lesser extent a UK administration), the company is placed under court protection for a set period of time while an examiner (an insolvency practitioner) formulates a scheme of arrangement to ensure the survival of the company. Once approved by the court, the scheme is binding on all creditors and shareholders.
• Statutory scheme of arrangement: a statutory procedure where a company can, with the approval of the court, effect a rearrangement (including a compromise) of its obligations and liabilities to its creditors (or certain classes of creditors). Almost any kind of reorganisation can be effected using this process.
• Pre-pack receivership: where a receiver sells some of all of a distressed company's business and assets immediately upon his/her appointment. This is usually a creditor-led process and requires considerable pre-planning and stakeholder support. Unsecured creditors are not usually consulted in advance. This process is not triggered by a formal declaration of insolvency. In contrast the right to appoint a receiver is exercised typically under a loan agreement where a number of events are recognised as allowing the lender to appoint a receiver. The most broadly worded event is where the security is threatened or jeopardised. The term pre-pack is used to denote a pre- insolvency agreement. This is in contrast to the process envisaged under Title IV of the proposed INSOL III Directive 2002/ 0408 (COD)^[4].
• Small company administrative rescue process: a cost-effective rescue tool for small or micro companies which is very similar to examinership in facilitating restructuring through a combination of debt-write down and new investment, but without the requirement for court involvement in all cases.

Given the diversity and flexibility of these processes, Ireland was already highly regarded internationally as a jurisdiction for both domestic and cross-border restructurings. The examinership process in particular was first introduced in Ireland over thirty years ago under the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 and was subsequently amended on more than one occasion and finally consolidated into Part 10 of the Principal Act. As a common law jurisdiction, the process has been further developed and refined by the Irish courts over the course of nearly three decades, bringing much valued certainty to debtors contemplating a restructuring. In recent years, a number of significant international restructurings have successfully used examinership, including, Norwegian Air,^[5] Weatherford International plc,^[6] Nordic Aviation Group,^[7] Mallinckrodt plc,^[8] and Ballantyne Re plc.^[9]

3. Transposition of the PRD 2019 in Ireland

All EU Member States were required to publish regulations to adopt the provisions of the PRD 2019 by 17 July 2021. In Ireland, as the examinership process was already substantially aligned to the mandatory provisions of the PRD 2019, only minor amendments to existing legislation were required.

A public consultation on the transposition of the PRD 2019 was launched by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (the ‘Department’) on 17 January 2020. A one-year extension of time to adopt the directive, to 17 July 2022, was availed of by Ireland (and other EU Member States) as a result of the increased pressure on the legislature arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. The public consultation report subsequently issued on 22 April 2022 (the ‘Consultation Report’),^[10] indicating that a two-phased approach would be adopted to the transposition of the directive:

• Phase 1: the mandatory articles of the PRD 2019 were to be transposed by the extended deadline of 17 July 2022. This was achieved by way of amendment to Parts 10 and 11 of the Principal Act, which provide for examinership and liquidations respectively. Those amendments were brought about by way of statutory regulations, called the European (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the ‘Regulations’),^[11] which were signed into law on 27 July 2022.
• Phase 2: the remaining articles of the directive – which include a proposed extension of worker's rights - are optional and, on the basis that they would ‘mark a significant change from the existing examinership framework both in terms of its scope and operation’,^[12] the Department has indicated that it is not yet in a position to adopt them. Instead, the optional articles are set to be considered as part of a wider review of the examinership procedure at a later stage.

A key concern about the implementation of the PRD 2019 in Ireland was that the examinership process should not be amended in such a way as to affect its trademark transparency, flexibility and certainty. In particular, there was debate around potentially significant amendments introduced by the Regulations in relation to the stay on enforcement actions and cross-class cram-down, which are discussed in more detail below.

4. Main features of the examinership process

4.1. Objective and scope of examinership

The stated aim of the examinership process when it was first introduced in Ireland in 1990 was to ‘facilitate the survival of the company, and the whole or any part of its undertaking, as a going concern’.^[13] This must be achieved in a manner that is not unfair to any party, and that remains the position following the coming into force of the Regulations.

The Irish High Court has jurisdiction to deal with examinerships of any ‘company’, which is defined in s. 10 of the Principal Act as a private company limited by shares. However, examinerships of small companies (as defined by s. 280A or B of the Principal Act) may be dealt with in the Circuit Court.

‘Related companies’, which are defined in s. 2(1) of the Principal Act as including subsidiaries and holding companies, or companies otherwise closely associated with the company, may also be placed into examinership under the provisions of s. 517 of the Principal Act.

The protective period lasts for 70 days initially from the date of the presentation of the petition to have the examiner appointed. If the examiner is unable to formulate his proposals for a scheme of arrangement within that 70 day period, then an application can be made to court to extend it by a further 30 days, up to a maximum of 100 days.

4.2. Criteria/test to enter into examinership

Examinership proceedings commence with the presentation of a petition to the High Court or Circuit Court, depending on the nature of the petitioning company. The application is made on an ex parte basis by a range of possible parties described in s. 510 of the Principal Act (usually the company itself but this can also be a director, creditor or member of the company). There is consequently a duty of utmost good faith on the petitioner to disclose all relevant information to the court. The company is temporarily placed under protection pending the hearing of the petition which will usually happen within one or two weeks. The court may also, on application at this stage, appoint an interim examiner to the company until the hearing of the petition.

At the petition hearing, the court must be satisfied that the entry criteria have been fulfilled before an examiner will be appointed. The proposed examiner is required to be suitably qualified and, where the matter has a cross-border element, the proposed examiner must also have sufficient experience and expertise to perform the role.

Under s. 509 of the Principal Act an examiner can be appointed by the court where the petitioner can show that the company is unable or likely to be unable to pay its debts as they fall due; no resolution for a winding-up subsists; no order has been made for the winding-up of the company; and the company has no obligations in relation to a bank asset that has been transferred to the Irish National Asset Management Agency (‘NAMA’).

S. 509(3) of the Principal Act provides that a company is unable to pay its debts if it cannot pay its debts as they fall due; the value of its assets is less than the value of its liabilities (taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities); or the circumstances of s. 570 of the Principal Act apply. S. 570 defines an inability to pay debts as including where a single creditor has served a written demand for a sum in excess of EUR 10,000, or two or more creditors have served a written demand for a sum in excess of EUR 20,000, and the company has neglected to discharge those amounts for more than 21 days. It should be noted that the amounts specified in s. 570 have been temporarily (until 31 December 2023) increased to EUR 50,000 by the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Covid-19) Act 2020.^[14]

The court cannot make an order appointing an examiner unless it is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the survival of the company and the whole or any part of its undertaking as a going concern. This is decided by reference to the report of an independent expert (discussed further below), which should confirm that the company has a reasonable prospect of survival if it is given an opportunity to restructure. The emphasis is on rescuing the company as opposed to the underlying business or part of the business and there is a considerable amount of established case law around the precise meaning and application of this aspect of the test.

The petitioner (which is usually the company itself but can also be a director, creditor or member of the company) and any interested party (including each creditor and any person notified of the petition) may be heard by the court at the petition hearing. The courts have a broad discretion to refuse a petition even where the statutory tests are satisfied and there must be clear evidence that the petition is necessary for it to be successful.

Where a receiver or provisional liquidator has already been appointed to the company at the time of presentation of the examinership petition, the court is empowered by s. 522 of the Principal Act to make various orders, including that they cease to act from a particular date.

4.3. Involved actors

In the examinership process the company remains the debtor in possession (similarly to Article 5 of the PRD) and, during the period of protection, the day-to-day responsibility for running the company remains with the company directors, although the examiner may apply to court to take over some or all of the directors' powers if necessary.

The application for the commencement of the examinership process is usually made by the company to the court, although it can also be made by a director, creditor, employee or member of the company. The relevant court is usually the High Court of Ireland but the Circuit Court also has jurisdiction to deal with examinerships of smaller companies.

The petition to commence the examinership and appoint an examiner is accompanied by a report of an independent expert. (Since the implementation of the examinership process in the 1990s the importance of this independent report has been increased in subsequent amending legislation). This report provides certain information in relation to the company, including the expert's opinion as to the company's prospect of survival and any conditions the expert considers must be satisfied to ensure such survival and conditions the expert considers must be satisfied to ensure such survival. The independent expert will either be the auditor of the company or a person who is qualified to be appointed as an examiner.^[15]

Once appointed the examiner must engage with creditors to agree a compromise agreement underpinning the rescue. Creditors, including secured creditors, preferential debt holders, and employees are treated within the scheme of the act. Secured creditors will normally be in a separate class or classes. Secured creditors lose any right they may otherwise have had to appoint a receiver over the company's property during the period of protection. It has also been established in case law^[16] that the debt due to a secured creditor can be reduced under a scheme provided it is not found to be unfairly prejudicial and the underlying security remains in place. However, in practice secured creditors will generally receive most, if not all, of the debt owing to them even if the debt is restructured by the scheme.

Equity holders do not generally have a significant role in the arrangement. In keeping with the provisions of Article 12 of the PRD 2019, the company's shareholders are precluded from bringing proceedings alleging oppression as a result of the conduct of the examinership or otherwise during the period of protection. Furthermore, as residual claimants in insolvency, shareholders have little at stake in a debt compromise and typically shareholder equity is eliminated. In Re Vantive Holdings^[17] the Supreme Court rejected an application to have an examiner appointed for a number of reasons but also observed that as there were no remaining employees and no business to be rescued that the residual interest of the shareholders was an insufficient reason for a rescue to proceed. See below additional information on debt-equity swaps.

Employees continue to be employed by the company as it trades during the examinership period and indeed that is generally regarded as necessary for the survival of the company as a going concern. The Irish courts have, in various cases, refused to confirm proposals which provide for a company's employees to be made redundant or which might force employees to agree to inferior terms such as reduced wages. The provisions of Article 13 of the PRD 2019 were considered in the Consultation Report and it was concluded that, given there is nothing in the Principal Act or other sectoral legislation that precludes the application of collective labour rights in the context of an examinership, no change to Irish law was required to bring it into line with Article 13 of the PRD 2019.

The examiner must carry out certain statutory duties during the period of protection and he/she may make further applications to the court to extend the period of court protection (up to the maximum period stated above) if necessary to allow for the formulation of his/her proposals. An examiner may make applications to the court for directions during the course of the examinership where any important question arises for determination. S. 530 of the Principal Act provides for the court to authorise the examiner to dispose of property which is subject to a fixed or floating charge or a hire-purchase agreement, where such disposal is likely to facilitate the survival of the company. Under s. 537 of the Principal Act the court can also be asked to approve, as part of the examiner's scheme of arrangement, the repudiation of any contract which still requires an element of performance by the company other than payment, such as a lease.

4.4. Stay on enforcement

Once an examiner is appointed as outlined in Section 4.2 above, the company is 'under the protection of the court' for the duration of the period of protection up to a maximum of 100 days.^[18] The protection of the court includes a stay on individual enforcement actions including:

• proceedings for the winding up of the company;
• the appointment of a receiver;
• any attachment, execution or sequestration of the company's property;
• the realisation of any mortgage, charge, lien or other encumbrance;
• repossession of the company's property;
• orders for relief for shareholder oppression;
• any other proceedings in relation to the company, unless specific leave of court is given.

This moratorium on creditor claims was already part of the examinership regime prior to the PRD 2019. However, Articles 6 and 7 of the directive necessitated a reasonably significant change to s. 520(5) of the Principal Act to carve employees out of the stay. Regulation 11 of the Regulations has inserted a new s. 520(5A) of the Principal Act which states that the stay will not prevent an employee seeking to commence or advance actions or proceedings against the company. This mandatory change means that companies in examinership no longer enjoy complete protection from creditors and a significant unforeseen employee claim (or class of claim) could potentially undermine or even unravel the examinership process.

4.5. The restructuring plan

The examiner is required to formulate proposals for a compromise or scheme of arrangement as soon as is practicable after his appointment. If at any stage during the period of protection the examiner forms the view that it is not possible to rescue the company, then he or she must immediately inform the court and the court may make an order that the company be wound up.

The examiner has a broad discretion in formulating a suitable scheme on depending on the financial position of the company, the nature of its business, the likelihood of finding a suitable investor and whether or not its creditors are supportive. A suitable investor will generally be identified to provide additional funds and a binding investment agreement will be entered into, subject only to court approval of the examiner's scheme.

Various technical amendments have been made to the provisions of the Principal Act in relation to the formation of the examiner's proposals to bring it into compliance with Article 8 of the PRD 2019. These have been captured in section 539 of the Principal Act, which provides that the examiner's proposals for a compromise or scheme of arrangement must:

• specify each class of members and creditors of the company;
• specify any class of members or creditors whose interests or claims will not be impaired by the proposals, including the reason why they are not being impaired;
• specify any class of members or creditors whose interests or claims will be impaired by the proposals, including the interests or claims being impaired^[19];
• provide equal treatment for each claim or interest of a particular class;
• identify the terms of the proposals, including details of any proposed restructuring measures, employment consequences and new financing;
• explain why the proposals provide a reasonable prospect of the company's survival;
• specify any management changes or other changes to the constitution of the company; and
• include such other matters the examiner deems appropriate.

Once the scheme of arrangement has been formulated, the examiner will convene meetings of the members and creditors of the company to vote on the proposals before a report is prepared for the court. Creditors are divided into classes for voting purposes and the number and types of classes will depend on the number and types of shareholders and creditors the company has. Regulation 15 has amended s. 539 of the Principal Act to provide that, as a minimum, creditors of secured and unsecured claims shall be treated in separate classes for the purposes of the proposals. However, the classes will generally include preferential creditors; secured creditors and unsecured creditors. There may also be a contingent creditor class which consists of claims which have not yet been resolved. Each class may be treated differently under the examiner's scheme, with preferential and secured creditors more likely to have their claim against the company satisfied than the unsecured or contingent creditor classes.

Regulation 14 has amended the Principal Act to provide that an examiner must ensure that every member or creditor (or class of members or creditors) whose interests are being impaired by the scheme is invited to attend the general meetings and the scheme of arrangement will not be binding on any members or creditors who did not receive notice of the meetings. This goes beyond what was previously required by s. 534 of the Principal Act and complicates the ability of an examiner to ensure all known and unknown creditors are bound by the scheme.

Following the meetings of members and creditors, the examiner will prepare his report to the court. S. 536 of the Principal Act requires the report to include the proposals that were put to the meetings (including any modifications made); the outcome of each of the meetings; a statement of the assets and liabilities of the company; a list of the company's creditors (including amounts owing and the nature of any security held); a list of the company's officers; and the examiner's recommendations. Once the report has been presented to the court, the court will fix a date for the confirmation hearing and may extend the 100 day period of protection if necessary to facilitate that.

4.6. Adoption and confirmation of the plan

One of the more significant changes made to the examinership regime by the Regulations is in relation to voting rights and cross-class cram-down. S. 540 of the Principal Act provides that the examiner's proposals will be deemed to have been accepted by a meeting of creditors ‘when a majority in number representing a majority in the value of the claims represented in that meeting’ vote in favour of them. However, a new s. 540(4A), inserted by Regulation 16, provides that creditors whose interests are not being impaired by the proposals shall not have voting rights and the number and value of their claims shall not be taken into account when calculating that majority. Regulation 17 goes on to amend s. 541 of the Principal Act which sets out the requirements for confirmation of a scheme. A new s. 541(3A) has been inserted, which requires the court to specify the conditions of confirmation. It sets out a list of requirements, including that the proposals satisfy the best-interest-of-creditors test which is discussed in more detail below. A new s. 541(3B) has also been inserted, which provides that where the proposals have not been accepted by a majority of creditors in number and value in accordance with s. 540, the court has discretion to confirm the proposals if they are accepted by either (i) a majority of voting classes whose interests are impaired, as long as one of those classes is secured creditors; or (ii) only one class of creditors whose interests are impaired, as long as they are not 'out of the money creditors' (i.e. creditors who, upon a valuation of the company as a going concern, would not reasonably be presumed to receive any payment or retain any interest if the liquidation order of priorities were applied).

The court will not confirm any proposals unless they satisfy the best-interests-of-creditors test and the proposals are challenged by a creditor on that basis. Article 2 of the PRD 2019 defines the best-interests of-creditors test as: ‘a test that is satisfied if no dissenting creditor would be worse off under a restructuring plan than such a creditor would be if the normal ranking of liquidation priorities under national law were applied, either in the event of liquidation, whether piecemeal or by sale as a going concern, or in the event of the next-best-alternative scenario if the restructuring plan were not confirmed.’ This has been adopted by way of an addition to Section 511(g) of the Principal Act, requiring the independent expert to confirm in their report that the best-interest-of-creditors test has been satisfied, and Sections 541(3A)(e), 541(5)(b) and 543(1)(e) of the Principal Act, which prevent the court from confirming proposals where there are dissenting creditors unless the test has been satisfied.

It was already well-established in Irish law that a court would not approve a scheme unless the examiner could satisfy the court that it was fair and equitable and not unfairly prejudicial to any creditor by comparison to a liquidation scenario.^[20] When applying the unfair prejudice test, the court could also draw a comparison between the treatment of different classes of creditors. It is not clear at this stage how the established principles in this area will interact with the new provisions.

Article 11(11)(c) of the PRD 2019 imposes an ‘Absolute Priority Rule’ – where the scheme must ensure that dissenting creditors are treated at least as favourably as any other class of the same rank and more favourably than any junior class. However, Ireland has availed of an optional derogation from the Absolute Priority Rule in the form of the unfair prejudice test at Section 541(4)(b)(ii) of the Principal Act, which is permitted by Article 11(2) of the PRD 2019. The concept of unfair prejudice is also added to the provisions in relation to the cessation of protection by way of a new Section 552(1A) of the Principal Act, which provides that the court, in deciding whether or not to cease protection, must take into account any unfair prejudice that the continuation of protection would cause to creditors.

4.7. Possibilities for a debt-for-equity swap

Once confirmed by the court, s. 541 of the Principal Act provides that the examiner's proposals will be binding on all impaired members and creditors of the company unless they were not given notice of the meetings that were convened to vote on the proposals. In practice, shareholder equity is typically diluted or eliminated entirely. However, it is also permissible for the examiner's scheme of arrangement to provide for a debt for equity swap. By way of example, in the recent case of Re Mallinckrodt plc,^[21] the subject company voluntarily initiated Chapter 11 proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As the company was registered in Ireland, it was a specific condition of the resulting Plan of Reorganisation that the Irish High Court would make an order under s. 541 of the Principal Act confirming the draft scheme of arrangement, which included a proposed debt for equity swap in favour of guaranteed unsecured notes claims.

4.8. Executory contracts

Prior to the transposition of the PRD 2019 in Ireland, creditors were not required to continue trading with a company in examinership. However, Regulation 12 adds a new section 520A to the Principal Act prohibiting a creditor from withholding performance, terminating, accelerating or otherwise modifying ‘essential executory contracts’ (defined as contracts under which the parties still have obligations to perform) where an examinership process has commenced. This section now operates even where such creditors may have an ipso facto contractual right to terminate on the appointment of an examiner or commencement of an insolvency process.

The Consultation Report indicates that this is generally regarded as a positive development for the examinership regime, which has up to now only provided for the examiner to certify certain liabilities that were necessary to incur during the period of protection as ‘expenses properly incurred’ that enjoy priority over other creditors in the scheme. However, clarity is required as to how this new provision will apply in practice.

4.9. Jurisdiction for and recognition of court decisions in Europe

Irish insolvency and restructuring processes, including examinership, are already listed in Annex A of EIR 2015. The Regulations simply provide further amendments to this existing process so it is not necessary for any new process to be added to the annex. It is accepted that EIR 2015 applies to all collective insolvency proceedings relating to a company with its centre of main interests ('COMI') in an EU Member State. However, it is not always necessary for a foreign company to have its COMI in an EU Member State for the Irish Courts to find they have jurisdiction to appoint an examiner. In Norwegian Air^[22], for example, it was determined that an examiner could be appointed to a related company (within the meaning of s. 517 of the Principal Act) that did not have its COMI in an EU Member State on the basis that it had a 'sufficient connection' to Ireland.

5. Outlook and conclusion

There is still a considerable amount that needs to be clarified in terms of how the changes introduced by the Regulations will work in practice. In particular, there is a concern that the changes to the procedure for approval of the scheme of arrangement by creditors outlined at 4.6 above (that an examiner's scheme of arrangement can no longer be solely approved by a creditor, or class of creditors, that would not reasonably be presumed to receive any payment or retain any interest in a liquidation scenario) could reduce the flexibility of the process. The carve-out of employees from the moratorium on enforcement discussed at 4.4 above also makes companies in examinership potentially more vulnerable to unforeseen employee claims that could undermine the process.

As discussed, the Irish examinership regime has been hugely successful for both domestic and cross-border restructurings and we have over thirty years of established case law to assist with the interpretation of the law as it stood prior to the adoption of the PRD 2019. In that sense it is somewhat unfortunate that the legislation has been required to be amended in this way. However, although there are some provisions which will impact on the procedure and may, in particular, reduce the certainty we are accustomed to, Ireland is a common law jurisdiction and further analysis and interpretation by the courts will likely provide more clarity on the practical implications in the near future.

No timeframe has been provided for Phase 2 of the implementation process in Ireland, where the Department proposes to examine the optional articles of the PRD 2019. The Consultation Report identified that some of those articles, in particular those which propose to extend employee/worker rights, would require more significant amendments to the existing examinership process and may be referred to a specialist employment rights review group.

^[1] Paper closing date 6 September 2023.

^[2] Companies Act 2014, as amended.

^[3] Irene Lynch Fannon, one of the co-authors, is the Chair of this Insolvency Review Committee.

^[4] Procedure 2022/0408/COD: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law.

^[5] Re Arctic Aviation Assets DAC [2021] IEHC 272.

^[6] Re Weatherford International plc (ex tempore, 12 December 2019) Record Number 2019/348COS.

^[7] Re Nordic Aviation Capital DAC [2020] IEHC 445.

^[8] Re Mallinckrodt plc [2022] IEHC 270.

^[9] Re Ballantyne Re plc [2019] IEHC 407.

^[10] Public Consultation Report – Transposition of Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency, April 2022.

^[11] European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022.

^[12] See Consultation Report, p. 3.

^[13] Section 2, Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990, as amended.

^[14] Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Covid-19) Act 2020, as amended.

^[15] Section 511 of the Companies Act 2014, as amended.

^[16] See Re McInerney Homes Ltd [2011] IESC 31; Re Traffic Group Ltd [2007] IEHC 445; infra n. 18

^[17] Re Vantive Holdings (No. 1) High Court decisions refusing application to appoint an Examiner reported at [2009] IEHC 384 and approved in the Supreme Court and reported at [2009] IESC 68.

^[18] Section 520 of the Companies Act 2014, as amended.

^[19] A creditor's claim is impaired if they will receive ‘less in payment of his or her claim than the full amount due in respect of the claim’ at the date of the petition and a member's interest is impaired if their shareholding, dividend or membership rights are reduced as a result of the proposals.

^[20] See Re McInerney Homes Ltd [2011] IESC 31; Re SIAC Construction Ltd [2014] IESC 25; Re Traffic Group Ltd [2007] IEHC 445; and Re Arctic Aviation Assets dac & Others [2021] IEHC 272.

^[21] Re Mallinckrodt plc [2022] IEHC 270.

^[22] Re Arctic Aviation Assets DAC [2020] IEHC 366.