The legislative process regarding the proposal of the Parliament and of the Council to amend the Regulation (whichwould introduce various changes as proposed by the Commission in order to address issues arisen in the enforcementof the Regulation) is approaching its conclusion

Introduction

The decision of the Court of Treviso of 26 February 2015 admitted a concordato proposal providing for a partial payment of receivables having a lien over the entire estate and for payment of unsecured creditors out of the higher liquidation value of the debtor’s assets according to the concordato plan, as compared to the bankruptcy liquidation value

The case

Two recent decisions of the Court of Reggio Emilia (18 December 2014) and of the Court of Palermo (13 October 2014) followed the Supreme Court’s case law according to which companies  held  by  public agencies can be declared bankrupt, even in case they provide “in house” services mainly to shareholders

The cases

The Italian Supreme Court (judgement No. 14552 of 26 June 2014), ruled that the disclosure of acts in fraud carried out by the debtor causes the admission to concordato preventivo to be revoked according to Article 173 IBL, even in case of approval by the creditors.

The case

The law of the State where an insolvency procedure is opened, applicable according to Art. 4, second paragraph, lett. m) of the Regulation (lex concursus), can be unenforceable pursuant to Art. 13 of the Regulation if according to the lawapplicable to the contract (lex contractus) the transaction cannot be challenged.

The case

The decision of the Court of Rovereto of 13 October 2014 and the Court of Bergamo of 26 September 2013 tookopposite stands on the issue of the allocation, for the purposes of the concordato preventivo proposal by the debtor, ofcash generated by future operation of the business following confirmation of the proposal.

The case

What began as a garden variety bankruptcy claims objection has ended with a sharply-worded, sixty-page opinion, in which the Sixth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ( “BAP”) affirmed a bankruptcy court’s $200,000 sanctions order entered against the creditor’s attorney.

Lawmakers amended again the “Marzano” version of the amministrazione straordinaria procedure,  in relation to the situation of ILVA S.p.A. based in Taranto. In particular, lawmakers extend the application to “undertakings of national strategic interest” some rules – which are also partially amended – already introduced for companies providing essential public services by Law Decree No.

“Bad news comes in threes.” “Third time’s the charm.” “Three strikes and you’re out.”

One of these three adages may come to characterize the outcome of a case of significant import argued before the US Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif. The case is the third in a trilogy including Stern v. Marshall and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, which examine the scope of the constitutional exercise of judicial power by bankruptcy courts.

Under section 365(f)(1), a debtor is permitted to assume and assign leases and executory contracts notwithstanding contractual limitations or “applicable law” that restricts such assignment. However, that broad general authorization begins with the limiting language, “except as provided in subsection (b) and (c) of this section….”