Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.
Il caso
Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato
Il caso
Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.
On November 21, 2016, in a case entitled In re Monson,1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision,2 which held that a debtor's conduct constituted a willful and malicious injury to a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), because the debtor injured the creditor's right to recover its loan, the injury was intended, and the debtor was conscious of his wrongdoing. Thus, the debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6).
Exceptions to the Dischargeability of Debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code
The Court of Pavia (14 October 2016) denies confirmation of a concordato preventivo plan and proposal approved by the creditors, based on the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner that the plan is clearly unsuitable to cure the debtor’s state of financial and economic distress
The case
The Court of Milan (29 September 2016) confirmed that the concordato preventivocan be terminated as a consequence of the mere fact that a “material” breach occurred, as provided by Art. 186 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law.
The case
The Court of Milan (10 November 2016) issued a confirmation order of a debt restructuring agreement pursuant to Art. 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law on a petition by an investment fund, which was deemed as a legal entity on its own right and not only a separate estate within the SGR which is the legal representative of the fund
The case
The Court of Ancona (11 October 2016) ruled that the debtor can continue to draw from existing revolving facilities, to be considered as pending contracts that do not require an authorization by the Court
The case
The Court of Appeals of Turin (5 August 2016) and the Court of Milan (25 June 2016) deal with cases of bankruptcy and concordato preventivo of the assigned debtor and confirm a broad interpretation of the limit to set-off set forth by Article 56 second para. of the Italian Bankruptcy Law
The case
The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.
Burr & Forman lawyers won a significant victory in the Eleventh Circuit earlier this month. In the case In re: David A. Failla, — F.3d — (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that a person who agrees to “surrender” his house in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) may not oppose the creditor’s foreclosure action in state court. Our firm was one of the first to advance this argument, and many, but not all, of the bankruptcy judges in Florida agreed with our interpretation of surrender under the bankruptcy code and related case law.