With judgment No. 5945 of 11 March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation addressed a key issue under EC Regulation No. 1346/2000: the location of the “center of main interests” (COMI) of the company according to factors recognizable by third parties.

The Case

The Court of Milan with a decision on 28 May 2014 addressed some heavily debated legal issues: the Bankruptcy Courtmay authorize the debtor to terminate credit facility agreements when the debtor submitted a pre-filing for concordato preventivo (known as “concordato con riserva”)?

The Case

The Tribunal of Milan with a decision of 12 June 2014 took a stand which is in sharp contrast with mainstreamcase-law, with respect to clauses – widely used as common practice in distressed assets deals as part of“concordato preventivo” restructurings based on an interim lease of business period while the insolvencyproceeding is pending – allowing the lessee to apply rental fee payments to the final purchase price of the business,once the “concordato” is confirmed and the sale can take place

On 21 June 2013 Italy issued a new emergency decree (Law Decree No. 69 of 21 June 2013, which entered into force on 22 June – the "2013 Decree") introducing a number of provisions aimed at fostering the economy and attracting foreign investments.¹

Certain provisions of the 2013 Decree amend the Bankruptcy Act² by introducing rules aimed at avoiding abuses and increasing transparency.

L’art. 82 del decreto legge 69/2013 (decreto “Del Fare”) detta disposizioni in materia di concordato preventivo con lo scopo di limitare la possibilità di presentare domande al solo fine di ottenere uno schermo dalle azioni esecutive e dalle misure cautelari sul patrimonio, con conseguente diminuzione della tutela del credito.

Le novità introdotte possono essere così riassunte:

On July 30, 2010 the Italian Parliament passed Law 122/20101 which, among others, improved the restructuring proceedings governed by the Italian Bankruptcy Law2 (“IBL”).

The improvements operate on two fronts of restructuring deals which had proven to be still unclear (and thus risky) despite the recent reform:

Traditionally in Italy the financial distress of a corporation was treated in a very strict way through proceedings aimed at the dissolution of the company, the sale of its assets and the replace of the directors with commissioners appointed by Public Bodies.

Indeed, should the enterprise become insolvent (i.e. not able to regularly pay its debts), it was unavoidably destined to be declared under bankruptcy or be put into extraordinary administration, a special form of insolvency procedure dedicated to the largest companies and aimed at preserving the workforce.

Italian bankruptcy law — Royal Decree No. 267 of 16 March 1942 — (the Bankruptcy Law) underwent a substantial reform between 2005 and 20091, mainly aimed at introducing (i) a more efficient regulation of the pre-bankruptcy agreement procedure (concordato preventivo)2 and (ii) new pre-bankruptcy schemes of arrangements, in the form of the out-of-court debt restructuring plan (piano attestato di risanamento)3 and the debt restructuring agreement (accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti)4.

Since 2005, pushed by the insolvencies and rescues of large Italian corporations such as Parmalat, Cirio and Alitalia, the Italian legislature has introduced effective tools aimed at preserving the debtor’s assets and ensuring the successful reorganisation of a debtor’s business to the benefit of all the parties involved.

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.