An extension of ten years has been imposed upon the bankruptcy of Alan Hynes, a businessman based in Wexford, due to his persistent non-compliance. This verdict was confirmed by a High Court Judge, who associated Alan’s actions with an absolute unwillingness to collaborate with the trustee managing his bankruptcy.
Previously in October 2022, he was declared insolvent, and he was scheduled to be freed from bankruptcy only last October. His insolvency, however, is now expected to last until October 2033. The High Court judged Hynes and his former spouse, Noreen Dunphy, insolvent because of the petitions filed by John and Bridget Atkinson of Glenbrien, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, who won a 2009 verdict against them for over €200,000. Ms Dunphy has already cleared her bankruptcy.
Following a hearing that was initiated due to complaints from investors who endured a loss of more than €18 million due to Alan’s unpropitious real-estate projects, the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Board tribunal expelled him in 2015 from the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy, in his verdict on Monday, He pointed out Hynes’s refusal to recognising the repercussions of his insolvency, opinions he held on a Mercedes car and a Dunmore East property. Mr. Hynes’s assertion that the Mercedes was confiscated by gardaí, however, lacked supporting information. A letter from the official assignee (OA), Ian Larkin, seeking €80,000 for the car, was misunderstood by Hynes and he incorrectly believed the OA was proposing €44,995 to buy it.
Furthermore, Mr Hynes consistently disrupted a property in Dunmore East which was under OA’s authority. The residence was the primary disputed point between him and the OA. The OA possessed a lease allegedly for that property, signed by Mr Hynes for a company. Hynes’s attempt to expel tenants, which he was legally not permitted to do, was another point of contention.
In the bankruptcy case, the judge found Mr Hynes guilty of numerous “unjustified” attempts to extract payments from specific policies, constituting an explicit violation of the Bankruptcy Act. His inappropriate activities have led to a ten-year extension of his bankruptcy period.
Michael Connolly, a barrister representing the OA, revealed to the court earlier that Mr Hynes has been persistently sending emails to the OA’s legal team, while blatantly disregarding the insolvency process and the implications of his bankruptcy. His disregard continued even after his bankruptcy was provisionally extended in October, Connolly further added.
Although Mr Hynes refrained from attending the virtual hearing, Mr Connolly introduced an email from Hynes to the court. In it, Hynes requested an extension until the end of the following week to make any changes necessary, also appealing for more lenient treatment regarding the misdiagnosis and treatment by Mr Larkin. He further emphasised his need for assurance about the enforceability of the consolidated agreement.
However, the judge dismissed these requests as lacking a valid ground for another deferment. Previously, Mr Hynes’ attempt to halt the 2022 bankruptcy judgement had been unsuccessful, and his appeal against the decision was dismissed since he failed to appear at the Court of Appeal.