The eyes of the financial world were on the U.S. during 2013. The view was dismaying and encouraging in roughly equal parts. The U.S. rang in the new year with a post-last-minute deal to avoid the Fiscal Cliff that kicked negotiations over "sequestration"—$110 billion in across-the-board cuts to military and domestic spending—two months down the road, but raised income taxes (on the wealthiest Americans) for the first time in two decades. 

The Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund (the "Fund") was established in 1985 to provide timely relief in the form of an ex gratia payment to eligible employees affected by the insolvency of their employers, for example where employees' severance payments are withheld pending winding-up proceedings. Section 16(2) of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Ordinance (the "Ordinance") provides that the Commissioner for Labour shall not make payment out of the Fund of amounts exceeding certain caps.

Proposed Swiss International Insolvency Law Reforms

In October 2015, the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement) published a preliminary draft of reforms to title 11 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (“SPILA”), which governs insolvency proceedings and compensation proceedings (Articles 166–175 rev-SPILA), together with an explanatory report. The consultation procedure for the proposed reforms culminated on February 5, 2016.

In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

On January 10, 2019, the Italian government approved the Code for Distress and Insolvency (Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza—the "CDI" ) as part of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2019, to replace the Italian Bankruptcy Law of 1942. With certain exceptions, the CDI will enter into force on August 14, 2020, unless amended by the Italian Parliament prior to the effective date.

Italy recently enacted a new insolvency code (the "New Insolvency Code"), which takes effect August 14, 2020.

In Short

The Situation: The Italian Parliament recently approved the Conversion Law of Decree no. 50, dealing with, among others, securitization regulations.

The Result: The Conversion Law expands the scope of the "Law 130 Vehicle" for the sale of certain securitized assets due to an insolvency or restructuring.

Looking Ahead: The new provisions should attract new investment and make it easier for banks and other financial intermediaries to dispose of nonperforming leases and other claims.

During the last two years, the Italian government has focused on reforming the Italian lending market, with the aim of boosting access to financing for Italian businesses and improving bankruptcy and enforcement proceedings in Italy. As part of this reform process, the Italian Council of Ministers enacted Decree No.

During the last few years, the section of Royal Decree No. 267 of March 16, 1942 (the "Italian Bankruptcy Law") dedicated to pre-insolvency proceedings has been reformed extensively by the Italian legislature. The purpose of the reform is to provide distressed Italian entities with a more modern and flexible insolvency law system based on private rather than judicial initiative.

During the last few years, Italian bankruptcy law has been shifting from a traditional "procedural/judicial" model, based on the central role of courts called upon to safeguard the "public interest" involved in bankruptcy by actively directing the procedure and making the most important decisions, to a model that recognizes the private interests of creditors. Under the new paradigm, creditors are conferred with decisional powers, while courts maintain a principally supervisory role.