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

On October 28, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision that significantly expands the jurisdictional bases that foreign issuers can rely upon to obtain relief in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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 Tribunal of Modena with a decision of 6 June 2015 stated that a supplier can not refuse to perform its obligation and ask for the payment of previous claims by raising a non-fulfilment of the debtor’s obligations objection. Payment of such claims can then be made only after confirmation of the concordato by the Court.

The case

The Tribunal of Milan, with a decision of 5 May 2015, ruled that Art. 104-ter of the Italian Bankruptcy Law is applicable to the lease of business entered into before the declaration of bankruptcy and, therefore, the receiver can terminate pending contracts according to Art. 72 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law

The case

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

In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its

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