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:
Claims disputes are “core proceedings” in bankruptcy cases that are subject to the general jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, subject to exceptions for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. Under 28 U.S.C.
Postpetition interest is a thorny area of bankruptcy law. The myriad rules, coupled with the inconsistent way in which they are often applied, provide fodder for litigation and opportunity for confusion.
This is the fourth and final post in our series on Judge Sontchi’s postpetition interest decision in Energy Future Holdings, issued on October 30, 2015. Our first post in this series analyzed Judge Sontchi’s ruling that postpetition interest on an unsecured claim does not constitute a part of the unsecured claim itself. Our
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.
This is the third post in our series on Judge Sontchi’s postpetition interest decision in Energy Futures Holdings, issued on October 30, 2015. Our first post in this series analyzed Judge Sontchi’s ruling that postpetition interest on an unsecured claim does not constitute a part of the unsecured claim itself.