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.

On 27 December 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking LIG Insurance SA, ultimately, commencing bankruptcy procedures against LIG Insurance SA and withdrawing its license to carry on insurance and reinsurance activity (FSA Decision 2347/2016).

According to the FSA, on 31 October 2016 the company had: (i) negative own capital of RON 56.2 million; and (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.44, resulting in concern over its capacity to cover its due obligations using own funds.

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

On 27 July 2016, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking Carpatica Asig SA, considering several audit and assessment reports. The outcome of the FSA analysis was the commencement of the bankruptcy procedures against Carpatica Asig SA.

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.

On January 25, 2016, the Romanian court handling the bankruptcy proceeding of Astra SA extended the deadline to file court claims against Astra SA to 17 February 2016. The initial deadline for filing was 18 January 2016. Creditors of Astra SA may wish to avail themselves of this extended deadline to file such claims in order to recover some or part of the amounts owed to them by Astra SA in the bankruptcy/liquidation proceedings.