In a recent judgment, the High Court has provided further guidance on the correct approach to an assessment of an application under s115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts.

In a significant recent judgment, the High Court has set aside an extension of a protective certificate issued to a debtor under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 on the grounds of material and culpable non-disclosure by a personal insolvency practitioner.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

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.

New legislation alters the law and procedures of personal insolvency in radical ways. The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 establishes an independent Insolvency Service of Ireland and introduces new insolvency procedures for addressing unsecured debts (of any value) and secured debts (up to €3 million in aggregate but without limit in the case of agreement). Current bankruptcy laws are amended, including a reduction of the bankruptcy term from 12 years to 3 and the carve-out of pension assets from the bankrupt’s estate.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.