In the context of the EU Directive 2019/1023/UE of 20 June 2019 (“Directive”) and in the aftermath of the Covid crisis, France has reformed its insolvency legislation. The purpose of the legislation is both to implement the requirements of the Directive into the French legislation, but also to tackle the consequences of the Covid crisis and endorse some of the measures that have been taken in this respect and have brought the number of insolvency proceedings to a historic low, as well as other measures.

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.

Cass. Com., 10 mars 2021, n°19-12.825

Dans le cadre d’une procédure de liquidation judiciaire, un liquidateur a assigné directement et conjointement le dirigeant de la société et son assureur pour demander leur condamnation solidaire au paiement de l’insuffisance d’actif des sociétés sur le fondement des articles L. 651-2 du code de commerce et L. 124-3 du code des assurances.

Cass. com., 10 mars 2021, n° 19-22.385

L’article L. 622-24 du Code de commerce est clair : tout mandataire ou préposé du créancier peut effectuer pour le compte de celui-ci une déclaration de créance au passif d’un débiteur à l’encontre duquel une procédure collective a été ouverte.

En effet, cet article prévoit notamment (alinéa 2) que :

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.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.