The Court of Cassation with the decision of 28 April 2015, No. 8575 ruled that no amendment to the concordato plan orproposal, even though more favourable to the creditors, can be made by the debtor after the end of the voting process,in a case, though, where the decision could have been influenced by the fact that the debtor himself had waived its rightto confirmation of the concordato proposal.

The case

The Court Monza decided upon a petition filed by the managing director of a company, after confirmation of a “concordato preventivo con continuità  aziendale”  proposal, seeking an authorization to perform certain acts not in the ordinary course of business.

The case

New rules for the competitive bid process aimed at the sale of the debtor’s assets in each phase or type of concordato preventivo procedure, which can now take place even before the confirmation order of the Court.

Competitive sale of debtor’s assets

The Italian Government further integrated the rules applicable to debt restructuring agreements, allowing the debtor to cram down the agreement also to dissenting minority lenders, in two different frameworks: a) stand-still agreements for a “temporary moratorium” pending negotiations, and b) the actual agreements for the rescheduling and restructuring of the outstanding debt.

The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.

According to Legislative Decree. No. 175/2014, in case of defaulting transferee / buyer, the transferor / supplier is entitled to recover the VAT originally paid to the Treasury, under the condition that the transferee / buyer - who has not paid his debt - has entered into a debt restructuring agreement with creditors pursuant to Article 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL) or into an out-of-court reorganization plans pursuant to Article 67, third paragraph, letter d) of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL)

The New Provision

With a decree of 11 March 2015 the Tribunal of Reggio Emilia, recalling the case-law principle of the socalled “consecution” of insolvency procedures, rejected the pleading in the proof of debt procedure of a creditor who requested its own post-concordato debt towards the then bankrupt company to be set off against its own pre-concordato receivable.

The case

The Tribunal of Milan allowed a concordato preventivo proposal to be amended, providing that additional resources for the creditors could be made available through a lien on real estate property belonging to a shareholder of the company.

The case

NCTM Studio Legale Associato assisted a company in filing and subsequently amending a concordato preventivo proposal before the Tribunal of Milan.

How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.

The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.

The case