Creditors being now allowed to make competing concordato proposals restricts the exclusive powers of the debtor, which are now limited to the choice to commence the procedure, while on the other side it is now always mandatory that a competitive bid process is carried on for the sale of business units and assets, when the proposal of the debtor provides for an already designated buyer
Concordato competing proposals by creditors
Lawmakers introduce further measures in order to stimulate new loans after the pre-filing for concordato preventivo or for a debt restructuring agreement, when it is urgent to prevent an unrecoverable prejudice to the business
The context
Introduction
Art. 57 para. 6-bis TUF (introduced by Legislative Decree No. 42/2012) provides for a special procedure of judicial liquidation of investment funds in an insolvency situation, where debts cannot be satisfied in full out of the fund’s assets, but does not state whether investment funds are eligible for concordato preventivo as an alternative to liquidation.
The issues
The Court of Cassation with the decision of 28 April 2015, No. 8575 ruled that no amendment to the concordato plan orproposal, even though more favourable to the creditors, can be made by the debtor after the end of the voting process,in a case, though, where the decision could have been influenced by the fact that the debtor himself had waived its rightto confirmation of the concordato proposal.
The case
The Court Monza decided upon a petition filed by the managing director of a company, after confirmation of a “concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale” proposal, seeking an authorization to perform certain acts not in the ordinary course of business.
The case
New rules for the competitive bid process aimed at the sale of the debtor’s assets in each phase or type of concordato preventivo procedure, which can now take place even before the confirmation order of the Court.
Competitive sale of debtor’s assets
The Italian Government further integrated the rules applicable to debt restructuring agreements, allowing the debtor to cram down the agreement also to dissenting minority lenders, in two different frameworks: a) stand-still agreements for a “temporary moratorium” pending negotiations, and b) the actual agreements for the rescheduling and restructuring of the outstanding debt.
In March 2015 in Bank of America NA v Caulkett the Supreme Court considered whether debtors in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation could invoke Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code to void or 'strip off' the junior mortgage liens on their homes when the senior mortgage debt exceeded their homes' current value (for further details please see "Supreme Court considers junior liens on 'underwater' property").