The High Court recently determined the extent to which a secured creditor must comply strictly with the formalities set out in a security instrument when executing a Deed of Appointment of a receiver. The Court ruled that strict compliance is required and that, in this case, this had not occurred.

Background

In a recent challenge to the appointment of a Receiver, the High Court was asked to consider the validity of a Deed of Appointment and whether it complied with the bank’s own mortgage deed. The Court found that failing to comply with the format set down in the mortgage deed can have drastic consequences.

Details of the case

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: 

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

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.

Judgment by Cregan J of 6 October 2014

Overview

This case concerned an application by the official liquidator of RQB Limited (in liquidation) (the Company) pursuant to S280 of Companies Act 1963 to determine the legal status of a floating charge dated 10 September 2008 which entered into by the Company in favour of Danske Bank (the Bank) and which the liquidator believes to be unenforceable.

Background

The "2005 Facility"

A number of recent High Court decisions suggest an increase in the number of interlocutory applications being brought by receivers seeking to obtain vacant possession of the properties over which they have been appointed.

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) recently published a consultation paper (CP69) on proposed changes to the Corporate Governance Code for Credit Institutions and Insurance Undertakings. The consultation period ends on 1 October 2013, following which, the CBI intends to publish the revised Code in December 2013. There will be a transitional period to allow institutions implement necessary amendments.

Notable proposed amendments to the Code include:

Chief Risk Officer (‘CRO’)

In the middle of the night back in February 2013 the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 (the IBRC Act) was passed by the Irish government. This Act allowed the Irish Minister for Finance to make a Special Liquidation Order winding up IBRC, being the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. As a consequence of that KPMG in Dublin were appointed as Special Liquidators of IBRC.

In In re Kerr Aluminium Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2012] IEHC 386, the High Court dismissed an application by a liquidator that certain payments made by the company in favour of Bank of Ireland be deemed a fraudulent preference within the meaning of section 286 of the Companies Act 1963. The decision is a further reminder of the challenges liquidators face in establishing a dominant intention to prefer one creditor over another in fraudulent preference applications.