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:

Key point

An assignee of future debts was bound by discounting and rebate arrangements concluded between the assignor and its customers despite having given notice of the assignment.

The facts

M supplied goods to customers. It factored its debts to Bibby in 2000. The Factoring Agreement provided that all future debts due to M by customers were to vest upon their creation in Bibby.

Bibby did the following to try and protect its position – ultimately the steps proved unsuccessful:

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.

There have been a couple of cases in the last few months where the impact of changes to the details of the various registers at Companies House has been considered by a Court. This article considers the points of interest for lenders that arise out of those decisions

What use is an LP registration certificate?

Not much in the case of a certificate that relates to a limited partnership (one to which the Limited Partnership Act 1907 applies not the limited liability partnership variety).

Key Point

The High Court has given some guidance on the effect of an order to restore a dissolved company to the register where a secured creditor has rights against that company and there has been a disclaimer by the Crown.

Facts

The Supreme Court has held that a floating charge, crystallised by notice, prior to the commencement of a winding up, ranks ahead of preferential creditors. However, the Court expressed the view that the relevant legislation needs to be amended to reverse the “undoubtedly unsatisfactory outcome”.

Background