Liquidator 'set his face against' dealing with the regulator, High Court told

The Director of Corporate Enforcement may seek a High Court order of attachment and committal against the liquidator of three insolvent companies, for failing to comply with the requirements of the new Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.

Ms Grainne Clohessy, for the director, told Mr Justice Lavan yesterday it seemed that the liquidator in question, Mr Michael O'Brien, of Glanmore Farm, Ashford, Co Wicklow, "had set his face against coming and dealing with the director [of Corporate Enforcement]".

Mr Justice Lavan said that, in the absence of any explanation from Mr O'Brien, the court had to take a serious view of a liquidator who failed to respond to the requirements under the legislation to provide details of the conduct of the directors of the liquidated companies to the regulator.

The companies are: Chinese Trade Association Ltd, Athlone, Co Westmeath; Midland Roofing Ltd, Portlaoise, Co Offaly; and Nucleus Management Group Ltd, Herbert Street, Dublin.

Mr Justice Lavan said he could not recall during his practice at the Bar, or as a judge, a liquidator acting in such a manner. In the absence of any explanation, he would grant orders to the regulator that Mr O'Brien file reports on the three firms as required by Section 56 of the 2001 Act.

Ms Clohessy said the liquidator had been served with notice of yesterday's hearing and it was unusual that he was not represented in court.

Two reminders were sent to him telling him of his obligations and a formal notice was then sent by registered post.

A few liquidators were involved in relation to a number of liquidations but those persons who did default were being brought to court by the director.

Mr O'Brien had made no contact with the director and gardaí had attended on four occasions to serve papers on him.

On the fourth occasion, they served Mr O'Brien personally, counsel said.

It seemed Mr O'Brien had set his face against dealing with the director whose policy to date had been reasonable. Mr O'Brien could have come forward and said he did not understand.

The judge said Mr O'Brien could have looked for an extension of time or given an undertaking to comply with his statutory obligations.

Ms Clohessy said Mr O'Brien's statutory obligations should have been complied with by November 30th, 2002. He had ignored two letters which told him that, if he so required, he could telephone the director. Mr O'Brien had also received a formal notice and ignored it. The legal proceedings were issued and he also ignored that.

She asked the court to make orders in relation to the three companies and if Mr O'Brien ignored those orders, she would advise her client that they were entitled to seek an order or attachment and committal against Mr O'Brien in due course.

Mr Justice Lavan asked if the regulator had a remedy in removing Mr O'Brien as liquidator of the companies or was that a remedy open to other parties? Ms Clohessy said that if Mr O'Brien failed to comply, an application could be made to remove for failing to comply with the court's order.