In September 2018 the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (“DIFCA”) announced that it proposes to replace its current insolvency law with a new law to update the insolvency regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and that it has launched a consultation in relation to the same.

Why are changes proposed?

Over the Bank holiday weekend, the UK government announced that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement certain measures (detailed below) as soon as parliamentary time permits.

The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:

• the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
• execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.

There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.

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 long-awaited UAE Federal Bankruptcy Law (the New Law) is expected to take effect on 29 December 2016. The reforms aim to modernise the largely untested existing bankruptcy legislation in a manner suitable to the economic and business landscape of a fast-developing country like the UAE. The move is away from the stigma of bankruptcy and business failure to rescue and rehabilitation.

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:

This briefing covers Brexit implications of restructuring and insolvency, in particular it discusses the implications on the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings and recognition of insolvency judgments and how schemes of arrangement will be impacted by Brexit.