On June 6, 2017, Australian-based mining equipment supplier Emeco Holdings emerged from chapter 15 proceedings in the Southern District of New York following an Australian court’s sanctioning of the company’s scheme of arrangement.

The scheme of arrangement was a component of an innovative, comprehensive restructuring that provided for a three-way merger of three large Australian mining service companies and a restructuring of A$680 million of debt through a debt-for-equity swap, rights offering, and full refinancing.

In December 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

Piggybacking off the case study involving a UK-based company in crisis after an oil spill in Nigeria, panelists Ryan Eagle of Ferrier Hodgson, Marcelo Carpenter of Sergio Bermudes Law Office, David Kelleher of Fortress Investment Group (Australia) Pty Ltd., and Fidelis Oditach of South Square discussed the key decision-making factors of investing in a similarly-situated oil and gas company. Some of the key takeaways applicable to investing in oil and gas companies generally were:

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:

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.

The Supreme Court has held that a floating charge, crystallised by notice, prior to the commencement of a winding up, ranks ahead of preferential creditors. However, the Court expressed the view that the relevant legislation needs to be amended to reverse the “undoubtedly unsatisfactory outcome”.

Background