The guiding forces for a review of EC Regulation No. 1346/2000
The downturn in the economy, which in recent years has severely affected businesses at all levels within the European Union, has pushed many countries to review their internal legal systems on insolvency and restructuring proceedings. Indeed, the demand for adequate rules increases in times of crisis, prompting reforms where existing legislation is incomplete or unable to offer legal instruments capable of responding to changing economic conditions.
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
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida determination that the authorized swapping of parts among aircraft to maximize efficiency “did not and could not commingle the participants’ ownership interests.” In re Avantair Inc., No. 15-10303, slip op. (Eleventh Circuit, February 3, 2016). The ruling helps to clarify uncertainties regarding the legal status of fractional ownership arrangements.
Brief Overview
Bad news for midstream counterparties of bankrupt oil & gas producers: you may not be able to rely (as much as you might have expected) on covenants “running with the land” to save your contracts from rejection in bankruptcy.