In many decisions involving US chapter 15 cases, the bankruptcy court’s principal focus will be on what is the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI). An ancillary issue is whether it is appropriate to create COMI to obtain the benefit of a more favorable jurisdiction to restructure a company’s debt (otherwise known as “COMI shifting”).

As we previously reported, the amendments made to the Singapore Companies Act (Companies Act) are part of Singapore’s efforts to become a hub for the restructuring of troubled companies in Asia.

Anyone who has walked around a mall in the United States lately or subscribes to any of the usual restructuring newsletters can’t help but wonder whether traditional, store-based retail as we know it will find a way to survive. Is this phenomenon limited to the United States, or is the retail industry facing a global restructuring of its entire business model?

Globalization is a hot topic these days. It should come as no surprise, then, that the challenges that come with having a global enterprise in financial distress can be complex. The panelists at the INSOL breakout session, Group next (or not): continuing challenges in the treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency, explored what happens when a global organization with businesses in multiple jurisdictions around the world tries to implement a cohesive and coordinated restructuring.

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Motors Liquidation Company is yet the latest case to show the difficulty in using the bankruptcy process to resolve tort claims.[1]

The Background Basics

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 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.

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: