The law would have to change if financial institutions and other creditors are to be required to accept positive “debt for equity” swaps in personal insolvency arrangements (PIAs), a High Court judge said.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made the comment when he dismissed an appeal in which a couple sought to write down to €31,000 a €210,000 balance on their mortgage by giving their mortgage provider an 85 per cent stake in their family home.
However, as the law requires the creditor’s consent for this — and it was not forthcoming — the judge said he had to dismiss the couple’s appeal.
The case concerned a couple who sought a personal insolvency arrangement to resolve the debt over their €330,000 family home to their mortgage lender, EBS, on which there was an outstanding debt of some €210,000, but in which there remained a “positive equity” of some €119,000.
Janan Ganesh: Elon Musk is wasted in the US – but he might shock Europe into changing its ways
Peter Pan review: Gaiety panto takes off with dizzying ensemble numbers and breathtaking effects
Lebanon ceasefire: ‘We have no windows, no doors but we can live. Not like other people’
Sally Rooney: When are we going to have the courage to stop the climate crisis?
Central to the resolution of the debt was that the mortgage loan balance would be reduced from €210,887.58 to €31,633.14 upon activation of their personal insolvency arrangement.
This would represent an 85 per cent reduction in the loan balance and in exchange EBS would be granted an 85 per cent share in their home. EBS could acquire that 85pc in the event of the sale of the home or, on the death of the longer-surviving co-borrower, from the estate.
After EBS would not agree to their proposals, the couple’s personal insolvency practitioner applied to the Circuit Court to have the arrangement approved. That court refused to do so under section 103(2) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 because the permission of the secured creditor (EBS) was required.
The couple appealed to the High Court.
It was argued on their behalf that because this was a debt for equity case involving positive equity a previous ruling in a debt for equity case did not apply. It was argued that there was a widely held view that a definitive ruling was required as to whether debt for equity solutions involving positive equity was, in principle, lawful.
EBS opposed the appeal and said the court should deal with the matter in accordance with a previous case and in accordance with the 2012 Act.
Ruling on the positive equity question as a preliminary issue, the judge said it does not matter whether the equity being offered is positive or negative. The relevant parts of the Act “are not in any way obscure or ambiguous”, he said.
Where one can identify circumstances in which a debt for equity swap involving positive equity might make good commercial sense from the point of view of the secured creditor, that creditor can readily agree to the proposal, he said.
However, the Act simply states that “in the absence of an agreement, this particular solution cannot be imposed by the court on the creditor”, he added.
If this state of affairs is to change, it was the judge’s view that “amending legislation will be required”.
