The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.
Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.
Key Points
- Interpretation of EU case law on protection of pension payments on employer insolvency not “entirely free from doubt”
The Facts
The claimant (C) was a member of the T&N defined benefit pension scheme from 1971 to 1998. In 2006, the scheme entered a PPF assessment period and C calculated that his pension under the PPF would, as a result of caps and limitations on indexation, be roughly 67% less than what he had previously expected.
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
Key Points
- Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
- Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
- Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)
The Facts
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 points
- Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
- Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
- The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment
The facts
Key Points
- Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
- Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation
The Facts
The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.