“[T]his Court finds that the exceptions to discharge under §523(a) only apply to individuals in Subchapter V.”

• Spring, et al. v. Davidson and Blok Industries, Inc. (In re Davidson; In re Blok Industries, Inc.; Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 23-3005, Doc. 87, at 15 (Bankr., N.D. Fla., decided February 14, 2025).

Facts

Introducción

Este mes destacamos especialmente dos sentencias del Tribunal Supremo que aclaran dudas con respecto de dos situaciones que se dan en la práctica:

(i) el tratamiento del importe a recibir en una opción de venta firmada antes del concurso y ejecutada tras éste;

(ii) la calificación de un crédito subordinado garantizado con hipoteca.

• “While the pre-petition Debtor may have consented to waiver of the automatic stay in favor of [secured creditor], . . . other creditors did not”; and
• “The automatic stay is designed to protect both debtors and creditors alike.”

In re DJK Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 24-60126, Doc. 196, at 13 (Bankr., S.D. Ill., February 13, 2025).

In re DJK Enterprises

“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.

• Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).

Facts

The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.

Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances:

Introducción

Este mes las resoluciones más interesantes están en los juzgados de lo mercantil.

El auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Málaga de 4 de noviembre de 2024 confirma la posibilidad de una segunda prorroga de los efectos de la comunicación de apertura de negociaciones con los acreedores, como ya hizo auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 2 de Madrid de 1 de octubre de 2024.

The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

The intersection of state escrow laws and federal bankruptcy laws can create confusion and surprise for contracting parties.

The Problem & Four Examples

The problem creating such confusion and surprise is this. State escrow laws:

• are, typically, defined by the common law;
• lack precise details; and
• are often applied in bankruptcy to the detriment of the party who believes a valid escrow exists.

Here are four examples of the escrow / bankruptcy problem.

Two-years prospective relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is a remedy granted for serial bankruptcy filings, under § 362(d)(4)(B), in In re Karpuleon, Case No. 24-80647 in Central Illinois Bankruptcy Court (entered 12/6/2024; Doc. 48).

Facts

Here’s what happened.

Debtor files a Chapter 13 petition on August 22, 2024—this is Debtor’s fourth such petition in the past four years.

The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).

Background

Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.