A recent Supreme Court decision looked at the effect of non-registration of the change of ownership of a charge on its enforcement.
The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (the “PI Act”) was signed into law on 26 December 2012 and introduces significant changes to the personal insolvency regime in Ireland, as described in our previous client briefing concerning the PI Act (issued in December 2012 and available on our website). All provisions of the PI Act, other than Part 4 which relates to bankruptcy, have now been commenced and it is expected that debtors will shortly be able to avail of the new insolvency measures.
Since July 2011, lenders have lived with great uncertainty as to their statutory rights, particularly their right to obtain possession of a secured property by way of summary proceedings. This uncertainty arose as a result of the 2011 High Court decision in Start Mortgages Limited & Ors v Gunn and Ors[1] (the “Start Mortgages Case”).
A recent High Court decision has further demonstrated that failure to comply with the Code of Conduct of Mortgage Arrears (the “Code”) is likely to result in the court refusing to grant an order for possession.
Summary
Toward the end of 2009 the Republic of Ireland’s then government passed legislation which would lead to the creation of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). The role of NAMA was a simple one: to remove toxic debt from the books of the Irish banks to assist in attempts to revive the national economy. The security would be acquired at a discount and purchased with Government backed bonds. In the first phase of NAMA (focusing on mortgages and other secured facilities with a minimum value of £20m) over £80bn in toxic debts were acquired.
Toward the end of 2009 the Republic of Ireland’s then government passed legislation which would lead to the creation of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). The role of NAMA was a simple one: to remove toxic debt from the books of the Irish banks to assist in attempts to revive the national economy. The security would be acquired at a discount and purchased with Government backed bonds. In the first phase of NAMA (focusing on mortgages and other secured facilities with a minimum value of £20m) over £80bn in toxic debts were acquired.
INTRODUCTION
Many practitioners may not think of stamp duty as a particular risk when taking on a liquidation or a receivership and there is limited published guidance on the topic. Against a background of an increasing number of business failures including companies operating in property development it is likely that liquidators and receivers will be faced with stamp duty issues on a more frequent basis. The purpose of this article is to identify some areas where practitioners may encounter stamp duty issues.
PROOF OF TITLE
On July 30, 2010 the Italian Parliament passed Law 122/20101 which, among others, improved the restructuring proceedings governed by the Italian Bankruptcy Law2 (“IBL”).
The improvements operate on two fronts of restructuring deals which had proven to be still unclear (and thus risky) despite the recent reform:
On March 1 2011 Tokyo District Court issued a decision which admitted the right of avoidance exercised by the court-appointed administrator of a corporate debtor in possession under civil rehabilitation proceedings, where the debtor company had settled a mortgage for a financing company as the real guarantor of its parent company.
In its 18 December 2015 ABN/Marell judgement, the Dutch Supreme Court held that if secured debt is pledged, the holder of that right of pledge has the authority to enforce not only its own pledge but also the security connected with that pledged secured debt. Such chains of secured debt are not uncommon, but often parties are not aware that they exist. According to this new case law, security down the chain can be used in the enforcement of the primary security.