The Italian government has postponed again the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 14 dated 12 January 2019 (the "Insolvency Code"), taking into account the COVID-19 impact on the socio-economic scenario and the framework set forth by Directive (EU) 2019/1023.

By Law Decree No. 118 dated 24 August 2021 (the "Law Decree"), the Italian government has postponed the entry into force of the Insolvency Code, which provides for an in-depth reform of the Italian insolvency law.

Italy has fully integrated the European Account Preservation Order into its procedures alongside existing protective tools available to creditors, who can now also request that their debtors' bank accounts in the European Union be frozen directly by the account bank.

On October 18, 2020 Italy adapted its civil procedure rules to incorporate the European Account Preservation Order ("EAPO") (introduced by EU Regulation 655/2014, in force since January 2017 ("the Regulation")) as an additional protective measure in favor of creditors.

In Short

The Situation: The COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on businesses across various sectors in Italy.

The Action: Further to the Law Decree No. 18 of March 17, 2020 (the "Cura Italia Decree"), the Italian Government recently enacted the Law Decree No. 23 of April 8, 2020 (the "Liquidity Decree"), implementing a number of additional measures aimed at mitigating the adverse economic impact of COVID-19.

Italy recently enacted a new insolvency code (the "New Insolvency Code"), which takes effect August 14, 2020.

In Short

The Situation: The Italian Parliament recently approved the Conversion Law of Decree no. 50, dealing with, among others, securitization regulations.

The Result: The Conversion Law expands the scope of the "Law 130 Vehicle" for the sale of certain securitized assets due to an insolvency or restructuring.

Looking Ahead: The new provisions should attract new investment and make it easier for banks and other financial intermediaries to dispose of nonperforming leases and other claims.

During the last two years, the Italian government has focused on reforming the Italian lending market, with the aim of boosting access to financing for Italian businesses and improving bankruptcy and enforcement proceedings in Italy. As part of this reform process, the Italian Council of Ministers enacted Decree No.

During the last few years, the section of Royal Decree No. 267 of March 16, 1942 (the "Italian Bankruptcy Law") dedicated to pre-insolvency proceedings has been reformed extensively by the Italian legislature. The purpose of the reform is to provide distressed Italian entities with a more modern and flexible insolvency law system based on private rather than judicial initiative.

Before soliciting votes on its bankruptcy plan, a chapter 11 debtor that has filed for bankruptcy typically must obtain court approval of its disclosure statement. As part of the disclosure-statement approval process, interested parties are afforded the opportunity to object. For example, a party may object on the grounds that the disclosure statement lacks sufficient information about the debtor. Sometimes, however, a party objects to the disclosure statement because the chapter 11 plan described by the statement cannot be confirmed.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith, lost by a 5-4 margin Round 2 of its Supreme Court bout with the estate of E. Pierce Marshall in a contest over Vickie's rights to a portion of the fortune of her late husband, billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. The dollar figures in dispute, amounting to more than $400 million, and the celebrity status of the original (and now deceased) litigants may grab headlines.