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.

As we head into a new Legal Year, we examine recent trends in debt recovery litigation. The Courts Service 2015 Annual Report noted, in the words of Chief Justice Ms. Susan Denham, “another busy year for the courts”. Indeed, the courts received 248,254 new civil cases in 2015, a very marginal decrease from the corresponding 2014 figure.

Default judgments

On September 13, the OCC published a proposed rule under the authority of the National Bank Act, to provide a framework for receiverships for national banks that are not insured by the FDIC.

Focus on the AB InBev and SABMiller merger

On August 4, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued updated servicing rules to expand foreclosure protections for homeowners and struggling borrowers. The new measures include expanding consumer protections to surviving family members, clarifying borrower protections in servicing transfers, providing periodic statements to borrowers in bankruptcy, and requiring servicers to provide certain foreclosure protections more than once over the life of the loan, among other protections.

On June 30, 2016, the United States Senate passed the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act” (“PROMESA”) and it was quickly signed into law by President Obama.^[1] PROMESA enables the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its public corporations and other instrumentalities in financial distress to restructure their debt.

On August 1, 2016, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) published model clauses for the contractual recognition of bail-in for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Article 55 of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD).

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

The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016). The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers: