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.
The Singapore Government has just passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill 13/2017 (the Bill), which contains major changes to Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws. As planned, these changes are expected to come into effect at the latest by the second quarter of 2017,1 and will be a major shake-up to the restructuring landscape of the region.
On 1 February 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they will formally implement the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Matters ("Guidelines").
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.1
IN BRIEF
Draft legislation unveiled
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
In Brief
For the first time, a court has adopted the ‘centre of main interest’ (COMI) as grounds at common law to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings.
The decision earlier this year by the High Court of Singapore (the Court) recognised a Japanese bankruptcy trustee appointed to companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI):
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.