En el concurso de acreedores de Cubigel Compressors S. A. U. (Cubigel), la administración concursal calificó de subordinado el crédito de Koxka Technologies S. L. U. (Koxka) por pertenecer esta sociedad al mismo grupo que la primera. De hecho, tanto Cubigel como Koxka eran sociedades unipersonales y sus únicos socios (a su vez sociedades mercantiles) estaban participados en porcentajes del 65 % y del 79 % por una misma persona física.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman

A continuación vamos a explorar diversos problemas que se plantean a propósito del apartado 9 de la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal, cuando existen garantes personales (o garantes reales por deuda ajena) en un proceso de refinanciación homologable por dicha disposición.

1. El crédito contingente contra el garante que refinancia por la disposición adicional 4.ª

Below we will explore several problems that arise in connection with para. 9 of the 4th Additional Provision ("AP") of the Insolvency Act ("LCon") when there are personal guarantors – or collateral-providers for third party debt – within refinancing arrangement ‘homologation’ (court-sanctioning) proceedings under said 4th AP.

1. Contingent claim against the guarantor who refinances under the 4th AP.

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)

(6th Cir. May 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, finding that the assignment of rents acted as a complete transfer of ownership and the assignor did not retain any interest in the rents. The court analyzes Michigan law on such assignments and concludes that because the debtor/assignor had no rights in the rents assigned, they were not property of the bankruptcy estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Stranch

Attorney for Appellant: Robert N. Bassel

Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy S. Friedberg

(6th Cir. April 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court and the bankruptcy court, holding that the sale of certain equity interests in the debtor to third parties was prohibited by the confirmed Chapter 11 plan. While the plan was silent as to such sales, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when interpreting the plan and considering the intent of the parties based on the negotiations that resulted in the final confirmed plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Donald