Overview

The institution of composition with creditors enabling business continuity (Article 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) and its impact on the legislative framework of public contracts (on the matter see “Composition with creditors enabling business continuity in public contracts”, June 2013, in www.nctm.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CPCP) have given rise to contrasting applications of case-law, and as matters stand, the institution is often applied in different ways.

A recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas concludes that directors of a non-debtor general partner may owe fiduciary duties to a limited partnership debtor in bankruptcy whether or not such duties exist (or have been disclaimed) under the debtor's and general partner's organizational documents or applicable state law.[1]  In deciding whether to dismiss an involuntary petition filed against Houston Regional Sports Network, L.P.

L’istituto del concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale (art. 186-bis della legge fallimentare) e il suo impatto sul quadro normativo dei contratti pubblici (sul punto cfr. “Concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale nei contratti pubblici”, giugno 2013, in www.nctm.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CPCP) hanno dato origine ad applicazioni di giurisprudenza contrastanti, che portano allo stato attuale ad identificare per esso diverse modalità applicative.

a) Continuità diretta e indiretta

Nella precedente esperienza applicativa del concordato, la conservazione dei complessi aziendali in esercizio assai di rado avveniva in capo allo stesso imprenditore, quanto piuttosto solo in via “indiretta”, attraverso la formale cessione ad un soggetto terzo, procedendo, prima del deposito della domanda di ammissione al concordato, alla concessione in affitto al fine di preservarne l'operatività.

The procedure of composition with creditors aimed at business continuity (“concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale”, provided by art. 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) has a major impact on the rules governing public contracts, above all with reference to the requirements requested both for the participation of economic operators in the public tender procedures and for their capacity to enter into agreements with public entities.

On August 2, 2012, in the case ofIn re MBS Management Services, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a retail electricity agreement with a real estate management company constituted a forward contract protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”).

In a decision further defining when US public policy restricts the relief a court may grant in aid of a foreign restructuring or insolvency proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 case of Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.), Ch. 15 Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15, 2012 WL 2138112 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2012) refused to a enforce a Mexican restructuring plan that novated and extinguished the guaranty obligations of the Mexican debtor’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.

Whether a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid at a sale under a chapter 11 plan has been the subject of conflicting decisions rendered by the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits.¹ The United States Supreme Court has resolved these inconsistent rulings with its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank, ² which affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s holding that a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan.

Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a worldwide estate comprising all of the legal or equitable interests of the debtor, “wherever located,” held by the debtor as of the filing date.¹ The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, in turn, applies “to all entities” and protects the debtor’s property and the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by barring “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate . . .