I. Introduction

The enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which ended the many tax shelter advantages previously available to real estate investors, coupled with the savings and loan crises, effectively collapsed the real estate boom of the early-to-mid 1980’s. From 1988 to 1993, countless numbers of real estate loans went into default and many real estate borrowers sought to involuntarily restructure their loans through the “cram-down” provisions of Chapter 11 under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). 

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:

In early 2016, the Government commissioned an examination into laws protecting employees following the overnight closure of the historic Clerys department store in Dublin in June 2015, with the immediate loss of 460 jobs. We review the recently published report which sets out six key proposals for legislative reform.

In most financing transactions, particularly project finance transactions, lenders seek to obtain security over all of a borrower’s assets. One crucial asset that sometimes does not get sufficient attention is insurance proceeds. Lenders are accustomed to ensuring access to the borrower’s insurance coverage through “additional insured” or “loss payee” provisions.

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.

Nearly every day a different E&P company makes an announcement that indicates the company is facing financial distress, insolvency or bankruptcy.  Many of these companies are Operators under Joint Operating Agreements and with each announcement there are likely Non-Operators concerned about the impact these events will have on their non-operated working interests.  Non-Operators should understand their JOA rights and options when their Operator becomes distressed.

On remand by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of Massachusetts found Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Sun Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP (“Sun Fund IV, and together with Sun Fund III, the “Sun Funds”) liable for the withdrawal liability of Scott Brass, Inc.