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.
The State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014 (the “Aviation Act”) came into force on 27 July 2014. The Aviation Act enhances Ireland’s position as a global centre for aviation finance and leasing by, among other things, introducing important reforms in the Shannon Region which will build upon the existing aviation industry of over 40 companies operating in the area.
On 13 August 2014, the Irish High Court gave a judgment which addresses significant issues in examinerships and provides some clarity regarding loan acquisitions and the timing and other considerations for creditors when issuing letters of demand.
Background
Insolvency practitioners are routinely asked to adjudicate on claims to retention of title of goods supplied. This task often involves an analysis of whether the goods in question have become fixed to land, irreversibly mixed with other goods or whether they remain as identifiable items.
In the recent case of Re Moormac Developments Limited (in receivership)[1], the High Court gave further clarity to this area of the law.
Waterside Management Company Limited v Brendan Kelly and Asta Kelly[1]
In a long awaited landmark judgment, The European Court of Justice has today found in favour of ten former Waterford Crystal workers who alleged the Irish State had failed in their obligations to correctly implement European Directive 2008/94EC ('The Directive’) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
Yesterday the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, and Director of the Insolvency Service of Ireland (“ISI”), Lorcan O’Connor, launched the ISI’s public information campaign, which includes guides to the three new personal insolvency arrangements, its website and an information helpline for queries.
In the recent decision of Kenneth Krys and Joanna Lau (as Joint Liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited in Liquidation) and Stichting Shell Pension Funds, HCVAP 2011/036, the ECSC Court of Appeal provided some clarification of its decision in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees Limited et al HCVAP No. 14 of 2010.
This article sets out the potential impact in the BVI and Cayman of the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, which was handed down on 24 October 2012. Rubin deals with the issue of whether orders made in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States can be enforced as judgments of the English Courts.
COMPETING SETS OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES
Important clarification was provided today to the insolvency world as the UK Supreme Court in the conjoined appeals in Rubin and New Cap rejected the modified universalist doctrine that established common law rules as to the enforcement of foreign judgments do not (or should not) apply to insolvency orders.