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.

Can an examiner be appointed to a company which had previously entered into a standstill agreement with one or more of its creditors? In Re KH Kitty Hall Holdings Limited [2017] IECA 247 the Court of Appeal answered "yes". 

Does a petitioner have to show that it is unmotivated by self-interest? "No" was the court's answer.

The Court of Appeal recently ruled, in Re KH Kitty Hall Holdings & Ors, that an agreement to restructure and discharge the secured debts of a number of companies by selling certain secured assets was not a bar to the appointment of an examiner to those companies. This was the case despite the fact that the application for the appointment of an examiner was inconsistent with the obligations imposed on the companies under the restructuring agreement and was objected to by the secured creditor.

Two significant decisions in relation to personal insolvency applications were made recently in the Dublin Circuit Court and the High Court. The decisions relate to “locus standi”, which means who has the right to bring an application before a court.

Circuit Court case