With the decision of 2 September 2015, No. 17461, the Court of Cassation confirmed that secured creditors’ deferred payment amounts to a partial satisfaction and has confirmed the criteria for determining the economic loss arising out of the delay, for allowing these creditors to vote.

The case

A Chapter 11 debtor’s reorganization plan purporting to cure a default under a pre-bankruptcy loan agreement must pay “the agreed-upon default rate interest,” consistent with “the underlying agreement” and the “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 31, 2015. In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 2015 WL 5091909, at *4 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015).

Lawmakers made a few changes to the concordato rules with the foreseeable result of restricting significantly the access by debtors to the procedure, shifting the main focus  from  liquidation  plans  to schemes allowing to preserve the business as a going concern

New rules introduced upon conversion of Art. 4 of law decree No. 83/2015

Creditors being now allowed to make competing concordato proposals restricts the exclusive powers of the debtor, which are now limited to the choice to commence the procedure, while on the other side it is now always mandatory that a competitive bid process is carried on for the sale of business units and assets, when the proposal of the debtor provides for an already designated buyer

Concordato competing proposals by creditors

Lawmakers introduce further measures in order to stimulate new loans after the pre-filing for concordato preventivo or for a debt restructuring agreement, when it is urgent to prevent an unrecoverable prejudice to the business

The context

A “first-time transaction can qualify” for the ordinary course of business exception to the preference recovery provision of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Aug. 10, 2015. In re C.W. Mining Co., 2015 WL 4717709 (10th Cir. Aug. 10, 2015).

A Chapter 11 reorganization plan may extinguish a secured creditor’s lien if: (1) the plan “does not preserve the lien”; (2) the court confirms the plan; (3) the plan “dealt with” the lender’s collateral; and (4) the lender “participated in the bankruptcy” case, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 4, 2015. In re Northern New England Tel. Operations, LLC, 2015 WL 4619576 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2015).

Art. 57 para. 6-bis TUF (introduced by Legislative Decree No. 42/2012) provides for a special procedure of judicial liquidation of investment funds in an insolvency situation, where debts cannot be satisfied in full out of the fund’s assets, but does not state whether investment funds are eligible for concordato preventivo as an alternative to liquidation.

The issues

The Court of Cassation with the decision of 28 April 2015, No. 8575 ruled that no amendment to the concordato plan orproposal, even though more favourable to the creditors, can be made by the debtor after the end of the voting process,in a case, though, where the decision could have been influenced by the fact that the debtor himself had waived its rightto confirmation of the concordato proposal.

The case

A lender’s appeal from an order confirming a Chapter 11 debtor’s cramdown reorganization plan is not equitably moot when the lender “diligently sought a stay” and the court could grant effective relief, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 1, 2015. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2015 WL 3972917, at *1 (9th Cir. July 1, 2015) (2-1).