Its main business was the design, manufacture and wholesale of ladies fashion garments. Traffic initially traded from a green field site at the IDA Centre in Prussia Street in Dublin.
Its principal promoter was a Dennis Booth.
The lack of candour and inappropriate action on the part of the petitioners were not so gross as to justify refusing to approve a scheme which seemed to have a high chance of successfully preserving the enterprise and most of the jobs associated with it.Ģ 2.1 Traffic commenced trading in October, 1985. Therefore, a court should lean in favour of approving a scheme where the enterprise, or a significant portion of it, and the jobs or a significant portion of them, were likely to be saved, especially if appropriate remedial measures could be put in place to mark and deal with the consequences of any lack of candour or other inappropriate action on the part of those charged with the management of the company. The principal focus of the legislation was to enable, in an appropriate case, an enterprise to continue in existence for the benefit of the economy as a whole and t enable as many as possible of the jobs which may be at stake to be maintained for the benefit of the community in which the relevant employment was located. However, there also had to be weighed in the balance the underlying object of the legislation.Ĭreditors whose interests were impaired by a scheme could object to the scheme on the grounds set out in s. Held by Clarke J in confirming the scheme of examinership that the actions of the principals of the company in the run up to, and during, an examinership could be a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether to confirm or refuse a scheme of examinership. The evidence was that the scheme had a real chance of enabling the company to keep trading out of its difficulties and preserve employment. The examiner presented a scheme for the reorganisation of the affairs of the company which had the support of all of the petitioners and creditors, save the Revenue Commissioners who opposed the scheme on the basis that the petitioners, immediately before the presentation of the petition, had made various payments to the company's bank which had the effect of reducing their exposure as guarantors and which had not been disclosed to the court at the presentation of the petition. An examiner was appointed over the affairs of the company on the petition of the principals of the company.
0 kommentar(er)
