In a recent decision, the Tribunal of Monza (23 October 2014) ruled that super-priority status can be denied if it is established that (i) professional duties were not properly performed or (ii) the concordato proved to be useless or detrimental for the creditors.

The Case

In the Schmid case the European Court of Justice ruled on the issue of jurisdiction of the Courts of a Member State ofthe EU where an insolvency procedure was commenced, whose receiver started a claw-back action against a defendantdomiciled in a non-Member State

The Case

The Tribunal of Milan with a decision of 12 June 2014 took a stand which is in sharp contrast with mainstreamcase-law, with respect to clauses – widely used as common practice in distressed assets deals as part of“concordato preventivo” restructurings based on an interim lease of business period while the insolvencyproceeding is pending – allowing the lessee to apply rental fee payments to the final purchase price of the business,once the “concordato” is confirmed and the sale can take place

With judgment No. 10105 of 9 May 2014, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that trusts can be recognized inItaly, when the settlor is insolvent, only if they are consistent with the purposes of the procedure.

The Case

With judgment No. 5945 of 11 March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation addressed a key issue under EC Regulation No. 1346/2000: the location of the “center of main interests” (COMI) of the company according to factors recognizable by third parties.

The Case

The Court of Milan with a decision on 28 May 2014 addressed some heavily debated legal issues: the Bankruptcy Courtmay authorize the debtor to terminate credit facility agreements when the debtor submitted a pre-filing for concordato preventivo (known as “concordato con riserva”)?

The Case

a) Continuità diretta e indiretta

Nella precedente esperienza applicativa del concordato, la conservazione dei complessi aziendali in esercizio assai di rado avveniva in capo allo stesso imprenditore, quanto piuttosto solo in via “indiretta”, attraverso la formale cessione ad un soggetto terzo, procedendo, prima del deposito della domanda di ammissione al concordato, alla concessione in affitto al fine di preservarne l'operatività.

When does the selection of a technically correct venue become “unjust”? This was the core question Judge Shelley Chapman was required to grapple with when Patriot Coal and almost 100 of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in New York this past summer. Should it matter that Patriot Coal created the New York subsidiaries, that permitted a New York court filing, about a month prior to the actual bankruptcy filing?

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a “safe harbor” provision which restricts a debtor’s ability to recover or “clawback” what would otherwise be “avoidable” payments made to creditors. In the recent case of Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc., 690 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth U.S.

In the 2010 decision of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3d. Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a plan proponent could deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on its collateral when the sale was made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. That holding was a surprise to many given that secured creditors were specifically authorized to credit bid in stand-alone sales under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. A year or so later, another circuit court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, came to the opposite conclusion.