An application to the High Court to have a Dublin-based plastics recycling firm wound up has been withdrawn.
The petition to have Cloughwater Plastics Ireland Limited wound up was struck out after lawyers representing the Revenue Commissioners informed the Court on Monday that it did not want to take over an application to appoint liquidators to the firm that had been originally brought by two other entities.
The company is a joint venture between the Netherlands-based Van Werven Group and the Northern Ireland-based Cloughwater Enterprises Limited and employs 35 people at its operations at Rosemount Park, Ballycoolin in Dublin.
Last month the court was asked to appoint provisional liquidators to the company, which recycles used mixed rigid plastics into raw materials for reuse in the plastics industry.
The two petitioning creditors, Kunststof Recycling Van Werven BV and Van Werven Plastic Recycling Holding BV are both part of the Van Werven group. They claimed that they had concerns about how the company was being operated and sought to have provisional liquidators put in place.
That application was opposed by lawyers acting for Shane Woods, who the court heard is a director of Cloughwater Enterprises, from Ballymena, Co Antrim, and the managing director of Cloughwater Plastics. His lawyers rejected the Dutch company’s allegations that Cloughwater Plastics was insolvent, and said the matter was a dispute between shareholders.
Following out-of-court talks, the creditors had agreed to withdraw the petition after the shareholders entered into discussions regarding the company’s future.
As part of that process, the company was undergoing ‘due diligence’. That process should take several weeks to complete.
However, when the matter was before the court last week, lawyers for Revenue, which is a creditor of the company, informed the court that it would seek to take over the petition due to concerns it had about Cloughwater Plastics.
On Monday, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts was informed by Sally O’Neill BL for Revenue that her client no longer wished to take over the petition as after being furnished with certain information its concerns had been addressed.
In the circumstances, Ms Justice Roberts was satisfied to formally strike out the petition and confirmed various costs orders previously made in the case.
