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
The Court of Bergamo (23 December 2015) authorized a business lease agreement even though a previous public auction could not be held due to the urgency of the case, considering that the mandatory provisions of Art. 163-‐bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law apply only if consistent with the “pre-‐ concordato” phase.
The case
The Court of Alessandria (18 January 2016) addressed a series of issues regarding various rules meant to allow preserving the business in the concordato preventivo procedure, sell the business through competitive bids, lease the business prior to the application to commence the procedure, "mixed" concordato schemes and objections which key continuing suppliers can raise for past debts
The case
The Italian Government started the legislative process for a comprehensive restatement of the whole set of rules of insolvency procedures, with specific innovative addresses regarding (to mention only the most important) the concordato preventivo procedure, venue rules, an out-of-court mediation alert process to timely address a risk of insolvency, new forms of security and a streamlined se