The decision of the Supreme Court of 20 April 2017, No. 9983 confirms that the bank can be held jointly liable with the directors towards the company, on different grounds from those making the bank accountable to individual creditors
The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.
Legal Background
If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:
The Court of Florence (November 2, 2016) confirmed that the debtor can retain part of his assets, with a view to support the company’s recovery and in derogation to principles of liability of the debtor.
The case
A company applied for concordato preventivo, based on a plan providing for, on one side, the sale of those assets not functional to the business and, on the other side, the company to continue to trade retaining those other assets which were needed for the activities to be carried on.
A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors
The case
Two companies having an indebtedness mainly towards banks and leasing companies, jointly submitted to the Court a request for confirmation of a debt restructuring agreement providing for a two-year moratorium of payment of principal and a restructuring of interests.
The Court of Cassation (decision No. 4915 of 27 February 2017) lowered the threshold allowing the Bankruptcy Court to review the feasibility of the concordato preventivo proposal.
The case
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
Summary
A recent judgment (German FCJ, 10 September 2015, IX ZR 215/13) deals with the question whether the recipient of a payment may be subject to a clawback claim if he returned the received amount to the debtor before the opening of insolvency proceedings.
Background
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