Facts
[A.] was declared bankrupt on 9 January 2002. Prior to the opening of his bankruptcy, several health insurance funds, which were succeeded by [B.], had initiated three proceedings for polypragmasia against him before the Arbitration Court of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Valais. As the bankruptcy estate had renounced to continue the lawsuits, the claims were offered to the creditors, and it was the debtor's spouse, D., who obtained the assignment and succeeded the bankruptcy estate in the pending proceedings. The bankruptcy was closed on 9 June 2005, and certificates of loss of assets were issued against the debtor. On 13 April 2006, the debtor [A.] filed a request for a composition moratorium. Within the 20-day deadline, a privileged creditor and nine non-privileged third-class creditors, including [B.] for amounts of CHF 147,100, CHF 55,787, and CHF 72,591, filed claims totaling CHF 797,742. The composition commissioner excluded [B.] from the vote, as his claims were disputed by the debtor under moratorium, and proposed to the judge to homologate the composition agreement, as the legal majorities were met. However, the judge refused to homologate the composition agreement, considering that the legal majorities were not reached by taking into account B.'s claims.Considerations
According to Art. 305(3) DEBA, the composition judge decides whether and to what extent the disputed claims or those subject to a suspensive condition or uncertain term should be counted, subject to any subsequent judgments. Art. 315(1) DEBA requires the judge, when homologating the composition agreement, to assign a 20-day deadline to the creditors whose claims are disputed to file an action at the composition court, under…