The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.
There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.
Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.
The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]
Proceeds of sale clauses
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
Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:
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:
One of the goals of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide a debtor with a fresh start. The discharge of prepetition debts at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case is one of the most important ways to attain this fresh start. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court made it harder for debtors to obtain a fresh start by broadening an exception to discharge.
Earlier this year, we covered Judge Shelley Chapman’s ruling in the Sabine bankruptcy, permitting the Debtors to reject a handful of gathering and other midstream agreements. Previously, Judge Chapman permitted rejection on the grounds that the Debtors exercised their reasonable business judgement in doing so.
Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman held that Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. has satisfied the standards for rejection of several gathering and handling agreements between Sabine and its midstream counter-parties, Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC and HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC.
Bankruptcy law in Ireland is now, broadly speaking, in line with that of the United Kingdom.
In particular, for bankrupts who cooperate with the bankruptcy process:
- bankruptcy will end in one year; and
- their interest in their family home will re-vest in them after 3 years.
Notably however, the courts will have discretion to extend the period of bankruptcy for up to 15 years for non-cooperative individuals and those who have concealed or transferred assets to the detriment of creditors.
Part 5: Bankruptcy Issues for Secured Creditors
In the final installment of this series on the oil & gas industry, Orrick Restructuring Chair Ron D’Aversa and Restructuring Partner Doug Mintz survey the bankruptcy landscape for the oil & gas industry in the current low-price climate, outlining strategic reasons for bankruptcies, how unencumbered assets make for an atypical bankruptcy case, and how valuation and new borrower options could ultimately lead to adversarial cases.