De Hoge Raad heeft geoordeeld dat het adviesrecht van de ondernemingsraad in beginsel wel van toepassing is in geval van faillissement. Hierbij formuleert de Hoge Raad drie richtlijnen:

In de Employment Update van april jl. informeerden wij u al over het feit dat de Advocaat-Generaal van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie ("HvJ") in zijn conclusie in de zaak Estro/Smallsteps het HvJ heeft geadviseerd, dat de Richtlijn Overgang van Onderneming gewoon van toepassing dient te zijn op zogenaamde pre-pack faillissementen. Een pre-pack faillissement betekent - in het kort - dat een doorstart volgend op een faillissement al vóór de faillietverklaring in stilte wordt voorbereid met de hulp van een "beoogd curator".

De pre-pack procedure is mogelijk een kort leven beschoren. Bij deze procedure wordt al vóór het uitspreken van het faillissement een doorstart voorbereid door de aanwijzing van een "beoogd curator". De wet die deze wettelijk moet verankeren in het Nederlandse insolventierecht in 2016 is aangenomen door de Tweede Kamer, maar moet nog van kracht worden.

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.

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