Summary

A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.

Creditors’ Case

Summary

Clarification on when the court should lift the administration moratorium in respect of litigation.

The Facts

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

Trustees’ Application

Trustees in bankruptcy issued an application for a declaration that a property owned by a company (the Property) was in fact owned by the bankrupt. The trustees contended that the Property had been bought from the sale proceeds of a property owned by the bankrupt’s father, but expressly held on trust for the bankrupt (the Trust Property).

The Facts

Summary

The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.

The Facts