The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case
The Court of Padua (15 June 2017) ruled that, in the procedure provided by Legislative Decree No. 270/1999, the three-year statute of limitations period provided by Art. 69-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law starts from the declaration of insolvency and not from the authorization of the plan for the sale of the business
The case
The Court with two recent decisions (6 April 2017, No. 8903 and 13 April 2017, No. 9547) confirmed that the Public Prosecutor is entitled to file for bankruptcy also in case he became aware of the insolvency in the course of a probe regarding other companies or individuals and within the concordato preventivo procedure.
The case
A decision of the Court of Rimini dated 1st December 2016 states that the competitive bid process provided by Art. 163-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law is not mandatory when there is a strict connection between the lease of business and a proposed third-party loan to support the concordato proposal
The case
The case
The receiver of a bankrupt joint-stock company sued its directors before the Court of Rome, in order to ascertain their liability, pursuant to Article 146 of Bankruptcy Law.
More precisely, the bankruptcy was considered the result of a transaction particularly burdensome with respect to the company’s share capital and unjustified in relation to the economic value of the block of shares acquired.