The European Court of Justice contradicts the Italian Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court andrules that a partial payment of VAT is possible, provided that an independent expert certifies that there isno better alternative for the Tax Authorities
The case
The Court of Cassation (19 February 2016, No. 3324) ruled that unauthorized payment of pre-‐petitionclaims mandate a stop of the concordato procedure according to Art. 173 of the Italian Bankruptcy Lawonly if a prejudice follows for the creditors
The case
The Court of Forlì (3 February 2016) allowed a competitive bid process to select the purchaser of abusiness unit during the phase following a concordato “pre-‐filing”
The case
“It is possible for the by-‐law to provide that the equity capital, which is mentioned by article 2437-‐ter, second paragraph, of the Civil Code for the purpose of liquidation of shares in case of withdrawal (but also, in case of mortis causa pre-‐emption right, because of the statement of the article 2355-‐bis, third paragraph of the Civil Code) is assessed pursuant to the criterion which consider the use of assets on the going concern perspective”
Two recent judgements deal with the issue in two different cases: the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere(17 February 2016) allows a partial payment of VAT, contrary to precedents of the Supreme Court and ofthe Constitutional Court, while the Court of Appeals of Bologna (24 December 2015) confirms that theVAT refund claim’s satisfaction depends on the value of the related assets
The case
The Supreme Court confirms in the recent decision No. 2538 of 9 February 2016 that the rules regardingthe effects of termination of a pending leasing contract, by choice of the receiver, cannot be applied tothe different case of termination for breach which has already occurred
The case
The Court of Milan (19 February 2016) adopts a restrictive approach and rules out that the special rulesprovided for concordato “preserving the business” (“concordato con continuità aziendale”) can applywhere the plan includes a lease of business arrangement
The case
On remand by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of Massachusetts found Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Sun Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP (“Sun Fund IV, and together with Sun Fund III, the “Sun Funds”) liable for the withdrawal liability of Scott Brass, Inc.
This alert describes certain information regarding the recently filed bankruptcy case of Emerald Oil, Inc. and is an example of current developments in the energy industry.
Emerald Oil, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on March 22, 2016 in the District of Delaware, pursuant to which the Debtors plan to sell substantially all of their assets (the “Assets”) in a possible auction in July 2016.
With the steep collapse of oil and gas prices in the last eighteen months, dozens of exploration and production companies have declared bankruptcy and many more companies are expected to file for bankruptcy protection unless prices rebound dramatically. As the prospect of further bankruptcies looms, it is important for parties to understand how to adequately protect their security interests and the nature of competing liens that could prevent them from fully realizing on the value of the collateral securing their counterparty’s obligations.