The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.

The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on tips and traps.

What are your top tips for a smooth restructuring and what potential sticking points would you highlight?

Where Luxembourg holding or bond issuing companies are key to a distressed group, the following points are often misunderstood or considered too late, thus jeopardising a smooth restructuring;

The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on trends and predictions.

How would you describe the current restructuring and insolvency landscape and prevailing trends in your jurisdiction? Are any new developments anticipated in the next 12 months, including any proposed legislative reforms?

The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on liability risk.

What duties do the directors of the debtor have when the company is in the “zone of insolvency” (or actually insolvent)? Do they have an obligation to commence insolvency proceedings at any particular time?

The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on cross-border / groups.

Can foreign debtors avail of the restructuring and insolvency regime in your jurisdiction?