What can a lender do about successive bankruptcy filings by a borrower? What can lessors do when their tenants file successive bankruptcy petitions? A recent decision by a bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of New York gives guidance on these questions.

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.

The Jevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case is proving to be precedent setting.  In a prior post, we examined how the court had greatly increased the evidentiary burden on a party seeking to hold one company liable for the debts of another company under a “single employer” theory.  That ruling was seen as a boon for private equity firms who were oftentimes the target of Chapter 11 creditor

Conversion law of “Decreto Sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016) 

On 3 July, 2016, Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016 was converted into Law no. 119 of 30 June 2016, through various amendments.

Legge di conversione del “decreto sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)

In data 3 luglio 2016 è entrata in vigore la legge 30 giugno 2016 n. 119, di conversione del decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, al quale sono state apportate alcune rilevanti modifiche. 

Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.

Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance is the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, provided for by art. 1 of the Law Decree.

Il decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, pubblicato in pari data in Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n. 102, entra in vigore in data odierna, 4 maggio 2016, pur richiedendo formale conversione in legge entro 60 giorni, pena la perdita di efficacia.

Recent key reforms have been brought to Italian Law by Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.

Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance are the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, and the possibility for the lender to appropriate the secured property in case of continuing default by the borrower.