The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

Conversion law of “Decreto Sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016) 

On 3 July, 2016, Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016 was converted into Law no. 119 of 30 June 2016, through various amendments.

Legge di conversione del “decreto sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)

In data 3 luglio 2016 è entrata in vigore la legge 30 giugno 2016 n. 119, di conversione del decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, al quale sono state apportate alcune rilevanti modifiche. 

Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.

Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance is the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, provided for by art. 1 of the Law Decree.

Il decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, pubblicato in pari data in Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale n. 102, entra in vigore in data odierna, 4 maggio 2016, pur richiedendo formale conversione in legge entro 60 giorni, pena la perdita di efficacia.

Recent key reforms have been brought to Italian Law by Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.

Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance are the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, and the possibility for the lender to appropriate the secured property in case of continuing default by the borrower.