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 “safe harbor” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect firms that trade derivatives, and other participants in financial and commodity markets, from the rigidity that bankruptcy law imposes on most parties. Since their inception in 1982, the safe harbor statutes have gradually grown broader, to reflect a Congressional intent of protecting against secondary shocks reverberating through those markets after a major bankruptcy. The liberalizing of safe harbors traces – and may well be explained by – the rapidly expanding use of derivatives contracts generally.
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.
Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion that strikes a significant blow against the rights of futures customers that might otherwise enjoy the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections. The opinion, arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (Sentinel), fashions a new exception to the safe harbor protections in the event of distributions or redemptions to customers of a failed futures commission merchant (FCM).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit took a bite out of a bagel store’s bankruptcy petition by holding that sales taxes are non-dischargeable “trust fund” taxes rather than excise taxes. In Re: Michael Calabrese, Jr., No. 11-3793 (3d. Cir. July 20, 2012). After not having enough dough to pay their debts, Don’s What a Bagel, Inc. and its individual owner both filed for bankruptcy protection.
On October 31, the MF Global enterprise collapsed into bankruptcy and a number of related insolvency proceedings. Amid allegations of improper commingling of customer accounts and rumors of misbegotten proprietary Eurobond trades, two unregulated entities – MF Global Finance USA Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. (the Unregulated Debtors) – filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on October 31, 2011. Later the same day, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation filed a complaint in the U.S.
It will be almost Christmas before we know, at least for portfolio companies that can file in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The case that will provide guidance is Friendly Ice Cream Corp., where Sun Capital, which is both equity owner and term lender, put Friendly into Chapter 11 on October 5, 2011. It did so after agreeing to a Section 363 purchase agreement with Friendly that would allow a Sun affiliate to buy assets (including desirable lease locations) free and clear by credit bidding outstanding pre-petition term debt owed to Sun.
A recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirms a 2010 ruling by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, which rendered certain netting and setoff provisions unenforceable in bankruptcy. The core holding – that a counterparty cannot offset pre-petition and post-petition amounts – should come as no surprise to market participants.