In two recent decisions the High Court considered the provisions of Section 115A(9) of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 (The Acts). The Section provides that a Court can give effect to a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite it having been rejected by creditors. It was designed to enable a qualifying debtor to retain their principal private residence in certain circumstances.

The recent judgment in MB Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Limited (in liquidation) –v- Allied Irish Bank Plc [2016] has clarified what constitutes “notice” of the liquidation of a company for creditors and banks alike.

2016 has seen the Irish High Court address the status of third-party litigation funding, and has struck a blow to funders seeking to service the Irish market by declaring it unlawful.

The Court’s judgment was handed down in April in the case of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v The Minister for Public Enterprise.

Trouble in the Emerald Isle

The perils of making a declaration of solvency by company directors, without reasonable grounds.

Summary

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has published its Annual Report for 2015.

Key Developments from the Report: 

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In April 2016, the Pensions Authority published prescribed guidance in relation to the Section 48A procedure under the Pensions Act 1990 (as amended) (the “Pensions Act”).

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

As well as representing new possibilities in the context of acquisitions, the new merger regime under the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) offers a number of benefits which make it attractive to corporates seeking to restructure.

The Act provides for the following three forms of statutory merger between private companies: