Il Regolamento (UE) n. 2015/848 ha tenuto fermo il principio per cui ciascuna società è soggetta ad unaprocedura nello Stato Membro in cui si trova il proprio COMI, ma ha introdotto forme di cooperazionetra gli amministratori ed i giudici delle singole procedure

Il Regolamento (CE) n. 2000/1346

Con il D.Lgs. 180/2015 e D.Lgs. 181/2015 è stata recepita la direttiva 2014/59/UE (c.d. “Direttiva BRRD”Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e di risoluzione deglienti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento

Premessa

Regulation No. 2015/848 is an update and an enhancement of European Union rules on cross-border insolvencyprocedures, with respect to Regulation No. 1346/2000 currently applicable. We start here a series of newsletters wherewe will address the new rules which will come into effect starting from 2017.

The Supreme Court (decision No. 20559 of 13 October 2015), decided that a single application for admission to theprocedure is not admissible if it involves a group, with a single proposal for all the creditors of the different companies,although the relevant assets and liabilities are kept formally separated.

The case

The Tribunal of Milan with a decree of 17 September 2015 ruled that the enforcement of a bank guarantee, pending therequest by the debtor to authorize the stay or termination of the same in a concordato preventivo procedure, bars thedecision by the Tribunal

The case

Two recent decisions of the Court of Rovereto (16 July 2015) and of the Court of Rimini (1 October 2015) reached opposite conclusions.

The case

The Court of Como, by order of 27 May 2015, authorised the Judicial Liquidator to settle the dispute with  the lawyer who advised the company in the concordato preventivo procedure, and this even against the advice of the Creditors’ Committee.

The case

With the decision of 16 September 2015, No. 18131, the Court of Cassation settled a long-standing debate, ruling that the trustee can not terminate an agreement to sell real estate property, entered into by the company which is later declared bankrupt, if the purchaser has registered with the Land Registry, before bankruptcy, its claim to the Court to be transferred title to the property.

The case

The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.