In the recent decision ofIn re: Abeinsa Holding Inc. et al., Del. Bankr. Ct. Dec. 14, 2016), Case No. 1:16-bk-10790, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey confirmed clean energy developer Abeinsa Holding Inc.’s Chapter 11 plan, which is part of the $16.5 billion global restructuring for Spanish parent Abengoa SA.

On December 21, 2016, Modular Space Corporation and its affiliated entities (“Modular Space” or the “Debtors”) filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. and Canada, to implement a plan to rework its $1 billion load of long-term debt. Modular Space will continue its operations during what the restructuring. Modular Space makes, leases and sells office trailers, mobile offices, temporary classrooms, modular office complexes and portable storage units.

From December 15-21, 2016, the Seal123, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed approximately 68 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 544 and/or 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Liquidation Trust also seek to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On November 21, 2016, in a case entitled In re Monson,1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision,2 which held that a debtor's conduct constituted a willful and malicious injury to a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), because the debtor injured the creditor's right to recover its loan, the injury was intended, and the debtor was conscious of his wrongdoing. Thus, the debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6).

Exceptions to the Dischargeability of Debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code

In the Limitless Mobile, LLC bankruptcy proceeding (Delaware Bankruptcy Case No. 16-12685), a formation meeting has been scheduled for December 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) at the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 King Street, Room 3209, Wilmington, DE 19801. Click Here for a copy of the Notice of Formation Meeting for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors issued by the Office of the United States Trustee.

At the end of my October blog post, Dear Debtor, You Said I was Your First Priority, a VIP!, I suggested that you might want to join a “support group” called the “Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors” (fondly referred to as the OCC or GUCCs), if you felt angry or depressed about your unsecured claim status. Admittedly, I may have led you astray.

On December 2, 2016, Limitless Mobile, LLC (“Limitless” or the “Debtor”) filed a chapter 11 voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtor was formed in 2013 to provide broadband and wireless telecommunication services in certain rural counties in central Pennsylvania. The Debtor is part of a worldwide corporate family referred to as the Limitless Group. According to the First Day Declaration, Limitless intends to wind down its retail-side business and emerge from bankruptcy as a wholesale operator.

In the recent decision of Pacifica L51 LLC v. New Invs., Inc. (In re New Invs., Inc.), No. 13-36194, 2016 WL 6543520 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that Section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code legislatively overruled Great W. Bank & Tr. v. Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc. (In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc.), 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.

On November 28, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion for relief from the automatic stay (we she treated as a motion for relief from the discharge injunction) in the Altegrity bankruptcy, Case No. 15-10226. The “Opinion” is available here. The Opinion was issued following legal argument and, by agreement of the parties, based only upon undisputed facts. Opinion at *1.

The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.