In bankruptcy cases under chapter 11, debtors sometimes opt for a "structured dismissal" when a consensual plan of reorganization or liquidation cannot be reached or conversion to chapter 7 would be too costly. In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions in structured dismissals which violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split as to whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code can shield from fraudulent conveyance attack transfers made through financial institutions where such financial institutions are merely "conduits" in the relevant transaction.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

Il Decreto Legge n. 83 del 27 giugno 2015, convertito dalla Legge n. 132 del 6 agosto 2015, pubblicata in Gazzetta Ufficiale il 20 agosto 2015 (la “Legge 132”) ha introdotto una serie di misure di sostegno per la crescita economica relative alle procedure pre-fallimentari, a quelle esecutive e a specifici benefici fiscali.

1. MODIFICHE ALLE PROCEDURE PRE-FALLIMENTARI

• Previsioni generali relative alla procedura di concordato preventivo

Law Decree no. 83 of 27 June 2015, recently converted into Law 132/2015, which was approved on 6 August 2015 and published on the Official Gazette on 20 August 2015 (the “Law 132”) introduced a number of measures aimed at enhancing the economic growth mainly related to pre-insolvency procedures, enforcement procedures and fiscal benefits.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

Con l’art. 33 del D.L. 22 giugno 2012 n. 831 il legislatore ha ampliato il novero delle ipotesi in cui le perdite su crediti iscritte in bilancio sono deducibili ai fini delle imposte sui redditi ed esteso agli accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti omologati e ai piani attestati di risanamento la disciplina dell’irrilevanza impositiva delle sopravvenienze attive realizzate dall’impresa debitrice in relazione alla riduzione dei debiti nell’ambito delle procedure concorsuali.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).