The Insolvency Service has announced that the UK government is planning to conduct an assessment of the impact of the voluntary industry measures introduced in November 2015 to improve the transparency of connected party pre-pack sales in Administration.

The 2014 Graham Review found that pre-pack sales were a useful business rescue tool but noted that there was evidence of less successful outcomes where the pre-pack sale was to a connected party.

A Belgian diamond and precious metals trader, Exelco NV, has filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 15 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12409). Exelco North America, Inc., along with three other American affiliates of Exelco NV, previously filed for Chapter 11 on September 27, 2017 (Lead Case No. 17-12029).

The special administrators of MFGUK have come up with a CVA proposal for its remaining ordinary creditors, which will enable the winding-up of the estate to the benefit of the creditors.

The administrators have made a number of material settlements and realisations during the administration, simplifying the estate and permitting distributions to ordinary unsecured creditors of 90p in the pound.

An application was made for recognition in Great Britain under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR") of new legislation in Croatia known as "Extraordinary Administration Proceeding".

This case considers section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely the rules on avoidance of certain floating charges, and provides analysis of the application of s245 notwithstanding the Liquidation originated in the British Virgin Islands.

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: