Among the many financial innovations that came out of the COVID era, non-pro rata uptier transactions as a liability management exercise (“LMEs”) are among the more controversial. While lawsuits challenging non-pro rata uptier transactions are making their way through the courts, two important decisions were recently issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the New York Appellate Division.

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

The High Court has recently struck out proceedings against a defaulting debtor where the bank made a unilateral commercial decision to delay to allow her co-debtor to recover financially so increasing its prospect of recovery.

Background

In Bank of Ireland v Wilson,¹ the bank commenced summary proceedings against the defaulting debtors in 2012. The debtors, who were jointly and severally liable on the debt, had been in a relationship but were now estranged.

Businesses in a wide range of industries may now be forced to consider bankruptcy given the unprecedented economic challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This advisory is designed to provide a high-level view of issues to be considered by human resources when considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Please note that this advisory focuses specifically on a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (pursuant to which a business will be reorganized) rather than Chapter 7 bankruptcy (pursuant to which a business will be liquidated).

Credit servicing firms, the Bankers' Book Evidence Acts 1879-1959 (“BBEA”), and the evidential requirements of an application for summary judgment were recently considered by the High Court in Promomtoria (Aran) Ltd v Burns. 1 The decision issued by Noonan J shows a practical use of Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in managing evidential requirements, where the BBEA cannot be utilised.

Background

The Irish Government is planning to take measures in the areas of settlement finality, insurance, and insurance distribution in the event of a 'no-deal Brexit'. The relevant measures are set out in Parts 7 and 8 of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019 (the “Withdrawal Bill”), which was published on 22 February 2019. These measures are in addition to a number of measures already taken at EU level.

Settlement Finality

The Government has approved the drafting of the Courts and Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2018. The Bill is intended to give additional protection to home owners with mortgage difficulties.

The origins of the new Bill lie in the Keeping People in their Homes Bill, a Private Member’s Bill from early 2017. The new Bill will amend the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 to deal with circumstances where an insolvency remedy is not available to a borrower pursuant to the 2013 Act.

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.

In a significant judgment, the High Court has held that there is no bar on a personal insolvency arrangement including a split-mortgage. The court also held that while a Personal Insolvency Practitioner is required to have regard to a creditor’s proposed solution for resolution of mortgage debt (eg a split-mortgage), the PIP will not be acting unreasonably by failing to adopt that solution and instead adopting another reasonable solution (eg debt write-down).

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the scope of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)’s safe harbor provision. Section 546(e) protects from avoidance those transfers that are made “by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, except where there is actual fraud. The safe harbor is intended to ensure the stability of the securities market in the event of corporate restructurings.