Producido el incumplimiento del acuerdo de refinanciación homologado, el juez lo declarará y los acreedores podrán instar la declaración de concurso (si procede) o iniciar ejecuciones singulares. Mas ¿qué créditos —los nuevos o los viejos— se ejecutan? Especialmente problemático es el asunto si se trata de ejecución de garantías reales, porque la norma supone que existe una posibilidad de que éstas sean incluso resueltas.

La digresión

Pursuant to article 47(1) of the Commercial Companies (Structural Changes) Act ("LME"), spin-offs (partial divisions) are excluded from pre-insolvency acts of disposal susceptible to clawback (avoidance).

An insolvency practitioner filed an avoidance claim, pleading, in the main, that the conveyance of certain real property under the partial division of the insolvent company be held unenforceable and, in the alternative, that the division itself be held unenforceable.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 28, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability action. The plaintiffs had obtained a state court default judgment against the debtor for damages caused to them when the debtor drove to their home and shot one of the plaintiffs and injured the other plaintiff with flying debris. The court holds that collateral estoppel bars the debtor from relitigating the issue of whether the debtor caused a willful and malicious injury to the plaintiffs. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 29, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2016)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court excepts from discharge a debt arising from a loan, but holds the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with respect to other debts. The court also finds that a lien was not created where there was no proof of an actual levy, but a seperate judgment lien is held valid. The court denies the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas, Arvin & Adams, James G. Adams, III, David E. Arvin

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.

The Sixth Circuit affirms the 2015 consent order specifying the manner in which certain provisions of the confirmed Chapter 11 plan would apply to a class of claim holders. The Korean Claimants objected, arguing that the district court lacked authority to enter the consent order and that the consent order was an impermissible modification of the distribution agreement. The court holds that the court had the requisite authority to enter the consent order and it merely clarified the distribution agreement rather than modified it. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

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