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
On 13 May 2015, the Government announced that it intends to give the courts the power to overrule the rejection by secured creditors of arrangements under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (the “Act”).
There is scant detail in the announcement save that it is intended to “support mortgage holders who are in arrears” and that legislation is to be brought forward before the Summer recess. How is such legislation likely to work and what potential frailties could it have?
The Issue
Insolvency practitioners often encounter difficulties when trying to sell properties in residential developments because an original management company has been struck off the Register of Companies. The standard approach can be laborious and costly. A more cost efficient alternative is often available.
- Debt capitalisation in court-approved refinancing agreements
The 4th additional provision (4th a.p.) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) provides that certain effects under a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement may extend to financial creditors that either have not signed the agreement or have expressed disagreement with it (dissenting creditors).
- RDA (RDL, its Spanish acronym) 11/2014, of 5 September, on urgent measures in insolvency matters, amends, inter alia, the rules on majorities required for the acceptance of settlement proposals.
The new rules can be found in art. 124(1) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (Ley Concursal), which now reads as follows:
- El RDL 11/2014, de 5 de septiembre, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal, ha venido a modificar, entre otros extremos, el régimen de las mayorías necesarias para la aceptación de propuestas de convenio.
El corazón de la nueva disciplina está constituido por el nuevo apartado 1 del art. 124 LC, que ha quedado redactado como sigue:
In a number of recent cases, borrowers have produced a detailed forensic analysis of the accrual of interest on their accounts by lenders alleging that any error in the calculation of interest invalidates the demand made by the lender and any appointment of a receiver on foot thereof.
According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.