Introduction

On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.

Background

In May 2017, the Irish Government signed a commencement order giving immediate effect to the ‘Alternative A’ insolvency remedy of the Aircraft Protocol to the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the Convention). The long-awaited implementation of ‘Alternative A’ gives force of law in Ireland to a regime which is similar to the insolvency regime in the USA, known as Chapter 11 “reorganisation” bankruptcy. The insolvency remedies in the Convention were designed to strengthen creditor’s positions.

Further evidence that Ireland is emerging from economic recession can be seen in the publication of the Courts Service Annual Report 2016 (the Report). An examination of the Report’s figures relating to debt collection activity shows a continuing decline in creditor litigation and enforcement. The number of default judgments marked in 2016 across the District, Circuit and High Courts shows a fall to 10,475 from 14,204 during the previous year. This represents almost an 80% drop on the equivalent number of such judgments marked in 2010.

Introduction

A recent High Court ruling which examined the practice of creditors entering into a "split mortgage" or warehousing agreement with debtors as part of a personal insolvency arrangement ("PIA") (pursuant to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012) is likely to result in banks reconsidering warehousing as a "go to" option when entering into PIAs with defaulting debtors.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

A recent decision of Judge Susan Ryan in the Dublin Circuit Court is likely to have a substantial impact on debtors seeking to enter into a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (‘PIA’) with their creditors.

In line with a recent decision of Judge Susan Ryan in the Dublin Circuit Court (further details of which can be found here), the High Court has held that only a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (“PIP”) has standing to apply to the Circuit Court for a review of a creditor’s rejection of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (“PIA”).

In Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558, Baker J, 5 October, 2017, the High Court held that applications to Court under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (the Acts), for approval of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite its rejection by creditors, must be made by a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) and not by the Debtor themselves.

In a recent judgment, the High Court has held that unfair prejudice to an investment fund creditor under a proposed Personal Insolvency Arrangement should be assessed in light of likely investment returns and not the cost of its future capital needs.

Following a High Court decision of 1 November 2017 , it seems that the High Court will assess an objection by a secured creditor to a personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) differently depending on whether the creditor is a bank (or other originating lender) or a loan purchaser that is not a bank.