On 1 July 2017 a new amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act came into force. One of the most significant changes introduced by the amendment relates to the assessment of insolvency of the debtor, performed by means of the cash-flow insolvency test.

Under Czech law, the debtor is insolvent if it has several creditors, due and payable debts for more than 30 days, and it is not able to fulfill them.

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.

A significant amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act will take effect on 1 July 2017. It has been stated that the main aim of the amendment is to introduce measures against so called “insolvency mafia” and regulate consultancy services providers in connection with solving personal debts. The amendment brings changes to rules for personal bankruptcies, which are to be solved through a discharge from debts.

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

On September 9, 2016, Citibank’s London Branch filed a claim as collateral agent for the bondholders of New World Resources (NWR) with the High Court in Ostrava in the insolvency proceedings of OKD. OKD owns seven coal mines in the Czech Republic, employing over 13000 people. The low cost of coal and the refusal of the Czech Government to bail it out led to OKD filing for a Czech restructuring process in May 2016.

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:

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.

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