On May 3, 2016 the Italian government approved Law Decree No. 59 (the “Decree”) which, inter alia, provides for new types of security and introduces streamlined in-court and out-of-court enforcement procedures. In addition, the Decree mandates the setting up of a centralized electronic register for security enforcement proceedings and insolvency and pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings. The Decree aims to facilitate financings and secondary debt transactions by reinforcing creditors’ rights and providing more flexible instruments to lenders and borrowers.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 17, 2016)

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2016)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 11, 2016)

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reverses the bankruptcy court’s order allowing the unsecured creditor’s late-filed claim in this Chapter 13 case. The creditor filed its claim eight days after the bar date, and the bankruptcy court allowed the claim based on excusable neglect. The B.A.P. holds that a bankruptcy court does not have authority to extend the deadline in Rule 3002(c) through equitable powers or the doctrine of equitable tolling. Opinion below.

Judge: Humphrey

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 9, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the creditors’ adversary proceeding. The claims asserted by the creditors were property of the estate and thus the trustee has the exclusive right to assert the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Foley & Lardner LLP, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Akin Gump Strauss  Hauer & Feld LLP, Robert J. Boller, Douglas A. Rappaport, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Casey M. Cantrell Swartz, W. Timothy Miller

Lease Assignment and Guarantees: Case Update and Recap

Summary

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Apr. 26, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 22, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms