L’art. 1 del cd. Decreto Liquidità prevede come noto la possibilità per imprese di ogni dimensione di accedere a finanziamenti bancari assistiti in misura variabile da garanzia prestata da SACE.

Nel suo articolato, la norma si riferisce alla “impresa beneficiaria” quale destinataria del finanziamento; sono tuttavia numerosi i riferimenti al gruppo di appartenenza di tale impresa, principalmente ai fini del calcolo dei parametri ma anche in relazione ad obblighi (ad esempio l’impegno a non deliberare la distribuzione di dividendi deve riguardare tutte le società del gruppo).

A company’s intellectual property rights^[1] are some of its most valuable and most enduring assets. They are also often the most encumbered, or the most enhanced, by contract.

On 22 May 2020, Justice Black of the Supreme Court of NSW issued judgment In the matter of Wollongong Coal Limited and In the matter of Jindal Steel & Power (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 614. The judgment sets out his Honour’s reasoning for granting the orders sought in a largely unprecedented application to effectively ‘re-enliven’ two schemes of arrangement which automatically terminated prior to being completed.

Key Takeaways

In Canada, the federal government enacted the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”), which is intended to relieve honest but unfortunate debtors of their debts and to organize a process that allows for an orderly administration of the estate of the debtors.

The process created by the BIA sets out the duties and obligations of the various stakeholders involved in the insolvency proceeding and it establishes numerous deadlines by which certain tasks are required to be accomplished.

Some of the more salient delays include:

Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020), the District of Delaware held that pre-petition, non-compensatory air quality penalties imposed on a Chapter 11 debtor by a state regulator were subject to discharge in bankruptcy. And in In re Peabody Energy Corp.

I.Exide Techs.: the Bankruptcy Code’s Exceptions to Dischargeability

On March 27, 2020, Congress enacted, and President Trump signed into law, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide financial relief to individuals and small business harmed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The CARES Act included an initial allocation of $349 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a convertible loan program under Section 7 of the Small Business Act (SBA).

Yes, says the First Circuit. The First Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny a group of bondholders’ (the “Bondholders”) motion to have a trustee appointed for the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “System”) under section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to appoint a trustee to pursue avoidance actions in Chapter 9 cases.

In the wake of the high profile collapse of the private equity firm Abraaj Capital, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) updated its insolvency regime with the introduction on June 13, 2019 of the new DIFC Insolvency Law (Law No.1 of 2019) (the “DIFC Insolvency Law”).

Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.