The High Court extended court protection for Premier Periclase Limited by 50 days, the maximum allowed, as the company’s examiner sought more time to assess investment proposals amid volatile gas prices and the war in Ukraine.
Mr Justice O’Moore made the order on 21 March 2022 under section 534 of the Companies Act 2014, as amended. The extension brings the protection period to 150 days. He listed the matter for mention on 8 April, when the examiner is expected to provide an update on the company’s prospects.
The examiner, Neil Hughes, told the court that the company’s investment timetable had been disrupted. He had hoped to select a preferred bidder by 3 March and enter an investment agreement by 11 March, with a view to sending proposals for a scheme of arrangement to creditors and members by 21 March. He said volatile gas prices had forced the company to make short-term production decisions and had affected potential investors’ appetite and due diligence.
Mr Hughes said gas had risen to 800 pence sterling a therm the previous Monday before falling to about 300 pence. The company had decided to suspend production in March and did not expect to restart that month. Whether production would resume in April remained under review and depended substantially on securing a suitable investment. He said two investment proposals had been received.
Counsel for the examiner submitted that without an extension, Mr Hughes could not deliver his report by 25 March and the examinership would fail, likely leading to liquidation and the loss of 82 full-time jobs. The judge considered whether the statutory extension was available when Covid-19 was not the cause of the request. He held that the law permits “exceptional circumstances” unrelated to Covid-19 to justify an extension, provided the statutory conditions are met. He found those conditions satisfied, including that the war’s effects had affected both the company and the examinership.
Bord Gáis supported the application, Revenue was neutral, and the Environmental Protection Agency communicated a position that was essentially neutral while seeking conditions. The judge did not impose those conditions, finding no case had been made for them. He said he also considered the likely job losses, the business’s potential, the examiner’s recommendation and the recent identification of a preferred investor represented at the hearing.
The extension is not a finding that the company will survive or that a scheme will be approved. The judge said Mr Hughes must return to court without delay if the company’s chances of survival materially diminish.