回购条款作为资管产品中常见的增信措施，资管新规对其有何影响？

资管新规之前，回购条款的效力得到法院普遍认可

回购条款本质上是一种逆向的、独立的交易行为，属于合同债权的范畴。其虽然具有一定的债权保障作用，但不构成债权担保的从属性，更不具有担保物权的优先受偿功能。因此，回购条款并非我国的法定担保形式。

资管新规之前，司法实践中，法院在考察当事人意思表示和内容的合法性基础上，一般会认可回购条款的合法有效性。

在“重庆国际信托股份有限公司与安徽三联实业发展有限公司等合同纠纷案”（〔2015〕渝高法民初字第00025号）中，法院认为，“《资产收益权转让及回购协议》系当事人的真实意思表示，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，合法有效。结合信托公司提供的营业执照和金融许可证上载明的内容，信托公司签订的上述合同不违反金融监管部门核准的经营范围；且本案合同所涉的借款资金来源并不影响借款合同本身的效力。”

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:

The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.

In a recent High Court decision, the validity of the appointment of joint receivers by ACC Loan Management Limited by deed under seal was upheld, and an order for possession in favour of those receivers was made.

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.

A number of recent High Court cases have highlighted the difficulties being faced by receivers in taking possession of agricultural lands. This is a critical issue for receivers who are being faced with mounting costs and delay as a result of the actions of uncooperative borrowers and / or their agents. The cases have highlighted the potential need for greater judicial resources and better and more vigorous case management.

Receivers appointed over agricultural lands are increasingly resorting to the High Court in order to: