The law of the State where an insolvency procedure is opened, applicable according to Art. 4, second paragraph, lett. m) of the Regulation (lex concursus), can be unenforceable pursuant to Art. 13 of the Regulation if according to the lawapplicable to the contract (lex contractus) the transaction cannot be challenged.
The case
The decision of the Court of Rovereto of 13 October 2014 and the Court of Bergamo of 26 September 2013 tookopposite stands on the issue of the allocation, for the purposes of the concordato preventivo proposal by the debtor, ofcash generated by future operation of the business following confirmation of the proposal.
The case
Lawmakers amended again the “Marzano” version of the amministrazione straordinaria procedure, in relation to the situation of ILVA S.p.A. based in Taranto. In particular, lawmakers extend the application to “undertakings of national strategic interest” some rules – which are also partially amended – already introduced for companies providing essential public services by Law Decree No.
A recent decision by a New Jersey bankruptcy court scrambles the law regarding rejected trademark licenses.1 Crumbs was a multi-location bakery that also licensed its trademarks and trade secrets to third parties. In July of 2014 Crumbs filed a Chapter 11 reorganization case and in August of 2014 the court entered an order selling substantially all of the assets of Crumbs to LFAC2 free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests.
In a case that should cause lenders heartburn, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently ruled that common provisions in a Chapter 11 plan prevented the debtor’s lender from executing on a judgment against the non-debtor owner of the debtor.1 Biltmore is a corporation2 that operates manufactured home parks and sells and rents manufactured homes. McGee is the president and controlling shareholder of Biltmore. Biltmore filed Chapter 11 in January of 2011, and TD Bank was Biltmore’s largest secured creditor.
Two recent decisions of the Tribunals of Ferrara (8 April 2014) and Palermo (9 June 2014) address some of the majorissues involved in group restructurings under Italian insolvency laws: conditions and features of a single “concordatopreventivo” procedure for all the companies of the same group
The Case
In a case where NCTM assisted the debtor, the Court of Appeals of Turin, with a decision of 17 April 2014, confirmed the most recent case law of the Court of Cassation limiting the power of the Tribunal to refuse confirmation to cases where, beyond doubt, the concordato is not economically feasible.
The case
The Tribunal of Naples, with a decision of 5 July 2013 in an interim proceeding, ruled that the Commissioner and the Judicial Liquidator can sue former directors for damages only if the claim (i) was included in the concordato proposal, or (ii) has grounds in tort, for facts entailing bankruptcy crimes.
The Case
In a recent decision, the Tribunal of Monza (23 October 2014) ruled that super-priority status can be denied if it is established that (i) professional duties were not properly performed or (ii) the concordato proved to be useless or detrimental for the creditors.
The Case
In the Schmid case the European Court of Justice ruled on the issue of jurisdiction of the Courts of a Member State ofthe EU where an insolvency procedure was commenced, whose receiver started a claw-back action against a defendantdomiciled in a non-Member State
The Case