On May 4th, 2016, Law Decree no. 59/2016 entered into force with the name “Urgent provisions regarding enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as measures in favor of the investors of banks in liquidation”. Such decree introduced a variety of modifications aimed at facilitating and speeding up the debt recovery.
The two aspects with the higher impact concern the provisions regarding the seizure and the ones about the immediate enforceability of the orders of payment.
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.
Il Decreto Legge n. 83 del 27 giugno 2015, convertito dalla Legge n. 132 del 6 agosto 2015, pubblicata in Gazzetta Ufficiale il 20 agosto 2015 (la “Legge 132”) ha introdotto una serie di misure di sostegno per la crescita economica relative alle procedure pre-fallimentari, a quelle esecutive e a specifici benefici fiscali.
1. MODIFICHE ALLE PROCEDURE PRE-FALLIMENTARI
• Previsioni generali relative alla procedura di concordato preventivo
Law Decree no. 83 of 27 June 2015, recently converted into Law 132/2015, which was approved on 6 August 2015 and published on the Official Gazette on 20 August 2015 (the “Law 132”) introduced a number of measures aimed at enhancing the economic growth mainly related to pre-insolvency procedures, enforcement procedures and fiscal benefits.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.
Con l’art. 33 del D.L. 22 giugno 2012 n. 831 il legislatore ha ampliato il novero delle ipotesi in cui le perdite su crediti iscritte in bilancio sono deducibili ai fini delle imposte sui redditi ed esteso agli accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti omologati e ai piani attestati di risanamento la disciplina dell’irrilevanza impositiva delle sopravvenienze attive realizzate dall’impresa debitrice in relazione alla riduzione dei debiti nell’ambito delle procedure concorsuali.
The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.
In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)