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."

With the judgment No. 25162 of 7 December 2016 the Court of Cassation refers the expression set forth in Art. 67, third paragraph, a) of the Italian Bankruptcy Law to the custom between the parties of the specific commercial relationship and not to the wider use of trade

The case

An insolvency receiver sued a former supplier of the bankrupt company, requesting the claw-back of payments made by the company.

Law No. 232 of 11 December 2016 (Budget Law for 2017), in force since 1st January 2017, amended Art. 182-ter of the Italian Bankruptcy Law by repealing the tax consolidation rule and setting aside the interpretation that the tax settlement thereby provided could be chosen as an alternative to a proposal to tax and social security agencies, based on ordinary rules

The tax settlement before Law No. 232 of 2016

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 5 December 2016, No. 24791 confirmed that receivables of advisors who assisted the debtor with respect to a filing for concordato preventivo shall be considered as super-priority claims in the following insolvency liquidation, unless the advice is challenged in the merits

The case

On February 8, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the class action lawsuit brought by unsecured bondholders of Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake"), adopting the so-called narrow reading of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA").[1]

On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a highly anticipated ruling in the chapter 11 reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp. ("EFH"), invalidating one of the aspects of EFH’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. InDel. Tr. Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016), a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed lower court rulings disallowing the claims of EFH’s noteholders for hundreds of millions of dollars in make-whole premiums allegedly due under their indentures.

In its highly anticipated Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp. decision,[1] the U.S.

Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.

Il caso

Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato

Il caso

Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.

The Court of Pavia (14 October 2016) denies confirmation of a concordato preventivo plan and proposal approved by the creditors, based on the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner that the plan is clearly unsuitable to cure the debtor’s state of financial and economic distress

The case