PRIMERA. El dinero de la refinanciación a efectos de los artículos 71 bis, 82.2.11.º y la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal (LCon) es suficiente que se haya suscrito «en el contexto de la refinanciación» y se destine a que el deudor obtenga liquidez, pudiendo ser una financiación simultánea, anterior o posterior al acuerdo, «siempre y cuando esté íntimamente conectado conéste y con la viabilidad de la empresa a corto o medio plazo»(conclusión aprobada por mayoría).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.

The defence of illegality, enunciated in arts. 1305 and 1306 of the Civil Code (abbrev.

La regla de la que vamos a tratar se formula con diversos nombres, aunque es muy conocida la expresión nemo potest propriam turpitudinem allegareo la denominación de denegatio actionis.

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.

1. Prolegómenos sobre naturaleza del leasing

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: