Bankruptcy remains the most well-known, and perhaps most feared, of the personal insolvency processes. Since the current threshold was introduced 30 years ago, it has been used by creditors owed as little as £750 as a dire threat to extract payment from reluctant debtors. However, the Government has stepped in and is squeezing the bankruptcy process, seeking to ensure bankruptcy is reserved for the most appropriate cases and encouraging alternative regimes for the management of small debts.

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.

In a challenging economy bankruptcy increasingly stands accused of constituting a mechanism for debtors to escape their responsibilities at their creditors' expense. It understandably remains a live debate as to whether a bankrupt should be afforded the means of a protected pot of money for his future use while his creditors are left unrecompensed for their loss. The debate is not new, but the balance has perhaps shifted in a climate where creditor losses are felt particularly keenly.

Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.

Judge Robert Gerber ruled last week that General Motors LLC (“New GM”), the entity formed in 2009 to acquire the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), is shielded from a substantial portion of the lawsuits based on ignition switch defects in cars manufactured prior to New GM’s acquisition of the assets of Old GM in 2009.

The BIS and Scottish Affairs Commons Select Committees have published a joint report recommending greater protection for workers when a business is faced with insolvency. The report was issued in response to the recent collapse of City Link (The impact of the closure of City Link on Employment).

Judge Christopher Sontchi issued a notable opinion last week in the bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. (“EFH”), Case No. 14-10979 (D. Del.), ruling that the repayment in full of certain senior secured notes did not trigger an obligation by the debtors to pay a make-whole premium.

In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders