The European legislator intends to harmonise the avoidance actions in the member states. Italy, however, already has comprehensive legislation in place that covers this issue.

European legal framework for insolvency

After a postponement of almost two years from the originally scheduled date (August 15, 2020) for its entry into force - mainly caused by the crisis caused by the pandemic emergency - on July 15, 2022, the Code of Corporate Crisis and Insolvency (or "CCII") set forth in Legislative Decree 14/2019, as most recently amended by Legislative Decree No. 83 of June 17, 2022, containing a final set of changes and important innovations, finally entered into force.

Dopo uno slittamento di quasi due anni dalla data originariamente prevista (15 agosto 2020) per la sua entrata in vigore - principalmente causato dalla crisi provocata dall’emergenza pandemica - il 15 luglio 2022 è definitivamente entrato in vigore il Codice della Crisi di Impresa e dell’Insolvenza (o “CCII”) di cui al DLgs. 14/2019, così come da ultimo modificato dal DLgs. 17 giugno 2022 n. 83 contenente una ultima serie di modifiche ed importanti novità.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

Following its approval on 5th August 2021 by the Council of Ministers, the Law-Decree n. 118 was published on 24th August into the G.U. n. 202 about the topic of "Urgent measures in the field of business crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures in the field of justice". 

Firstly, the Law-Decree postpones the entry into force of the Italian Crisis Code until 16th May 2022 (Art. 1, letter a), further postponing to 31 December 2023 the “crisis alert related procedures” introduced by Article 12 of the Crisis Code. 

A seguito dell’approvazione avvenuta il 5 agosto 2021 da parte del Consiglio dei ministri, è stato pubblicato il 24 agosto in G.U. n 202 il Decreto-legge n. 118 in tema di “Misure urgenti in materia di crisi d’impresa e di risanamento aziendale, nonché ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di giustizia”. 

Il Decreto in primo luogo differisce l’entrata in vigore del Codice della Crisi al 16 maggio 2022 (art. 1, lett. a), posticipando ulteriormente al 31 dicembre 2023 le procedure di allerta della crisi introdotte dall'art. 12 CCI. 

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background