The Facts

In December 2015, Hart J heard (and refused) an application by Mr Golstein for revocation of a decision of 31 May 2012 passing a proposal by Mr Bishop to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). Mr Golstein, who was claiming a sum of £122,000 from Mr Bishop, appealed the decision on the basis that his claim was not correctly admitted for voting purposes and that there was material non-disclosure by Mr Bishop which led to the passing of the IVA.

The Decision

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

Richards J provided directions on issues brought forward by administrators including:

• the treatment of interest

• in the context of various provable and non-provable debts.

The newest in the series of judgments to deal with interest arising out of creditors’ claims in the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), this latest instalment sought to deal with six supplemental issues on which the administrators sought directions.

One interesting discussion related to:

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.

Validation orders under s127 Insolvency Act 1986 will only be made:

• in special circumstances

• where a particular transaction is one that is in the interests of the creditors as a whole; and

• the circumstances warrant the overriding of the pari passu principle

The Facts

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 points

• Automatic stays on proceedings are imposed by Article 20 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (and mirrored in s.130(2) IA 1986)
• The case reinforces the principle that automatic stays are designed to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of assets otherwise available for distribution amongst creditors

The facts