With Law No. 132 of 6 August 2015 Italy’s parliament finally passed (with some amendments) Law Decree No. 83 of 27 June 2015 (as finally converted into law, the “Decree”), amending various provisions of Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions. The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

A “structured dismissal” of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize costs and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy and appellate courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy.

On 23 June 2015, the Italian Cabinet approved Law Decree No. 83 which amends Royal Decree No. 267 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Act”), the civil code and the code of civil procedure, and certain tax provisions (the “Decree”). The amendments aim to facilitate debt restructurings, support distressed companies in their turnaround attempts, and foster quicker liquidations in bankruptcy proceedings.

Interim Financing

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (the “Regulation”) reforms the former European Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (EC) 1346/2000 (the “Original Regulation”). The aim of the Regulation, in particular, is to enhance the effective administration of cross-border insolvency proceedings, establishing a common framework for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The main features of the Regulation are:

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (2012), pronounced in no uncertain terms that a secured creditor must be given the right to “credit bid” its claim in a bankruptcy sale of its collateral, the controversy over restrictions on credit bidding continues in the courts. A ruling recently handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has added a new wrinkle to the debate. InBaker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Morton (In re R.L. Adkins Corp.), 2015 BL 116996 (5th Cir. Apr.

Debt-for-equity swaps and debt exchanges are common features of out-of-court as well as chapter 11 restructurings. For publicly traded securities, out-of-court restructurings in the form of "exchange offers" or "tender offers" are, absent an exemption, subject to the rules governing an issuance of new securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the "SEA") as well as the SEA tender offer rules.

Compared to much of the rest of the world, the United States had the most positive economic, business, and financial news in 2014.

After a creditor or equity security holder casts its vote to accept or reject a chapter 11 plan, the vote can be changed or withdrawn "for cause shown" in accordance with Rule 3018(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Rule 3018(a)"). However, "cause" is not defined in Rule 3018(a), and relatively few courts have addressed the meaning of the term in this context in reported decisions.

A "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor's assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize cost and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy. A Texas bankruptcy court recently added to this slim body of jurisprudence. InIn re Buffet Partners, L.P., 2014 BL 207602 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.

Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism designed to preserve the creditor/shareholder risk allocation paradigm by categorically subordinating most types of claims asserted against a debtor by equity holders in respect of their equity holdings. However, courts do not always agree on the scope of this provision in undertaking to implement its underlying policy objectives. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this issue in In re Lehman Brothers Inc., 2014 BL 21201 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2014).