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.

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.