On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.

The case

A  focus  on  the  different  interpretations  concerning  the  treatment  of  claims  for  costs  allocation  in  legal proceedings where a creditor is successful against a debtor admitted to a concordato preventivo procedure

The issue

The Court of Padua (6 March 2015) ruled that the authorization can be granted – provided that it is a case of urgency as required by law – only to the extent that the interests of creditors are best protected, through a competitive sale procedure setting a reasonable timing and an appropriate data room.

The case

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