The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has published its Annual Report for 2015.

Key Developments from the Report: 

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:

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In April 2016, the Pensions Authority published prescribed guidance in relation to the Section 48A procedure under the Pensions Act 1990 (as amended) (the “Pensions Act”).

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

As well as representing new possibilities in the context of acquisitions, the new merger regime under the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) offers a number of benefits which make it attractive to corporates seeking to restructure.

The Act provides for the following three forms of statutory merger between private companies:

On 25 July 2016, Insurance Ireland published a statement opposing the Department of Finance's recent recommendation that liabilities of any insolvent motor insurer should be assumed by the Insurance Compensation Fund. Insurance Ireland states this would and pose a systemic risk to the Irish motor insurance market.

We recently published an article entitled“Good news for financial institutions seeking to challenge Protective Certificates” which outlined the positive steps taken the High Court to prevent a Debtor from receiving the full benefit of a protective certificate (“PC”) where it would cause irreparable loss to a lending institution.

Letters of demand frequently request a party to comply with certain obligations by “close of business”. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding what this phrase means, the Supreme Court was recently asked to determine what time is close of business. 

Background

A mortgage deed provided that money owed by the borrower to the bank was repayable on demand and that if a demand was not satisfied, the bank could enforce its security by appointing a receiver. 

A termination notice served on a tenant is invalid if it does not specifically state that the landlord intends to enter into a binding agreement to sell the property within three months of the termination of the lease, the High Court held on 5 April 2016.

Details of the Case