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
The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.
In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.
Background
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
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
Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato
Il caso
Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.