Bankruptcy is all about the debtor’s assets, specifically how many and who gets them. The reason that many bankruptcy cases are contentious is that the parties often disagree about the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors, as well as how the assets should be divvied up.

“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

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

In a recent case, a lawyer was sanctioned by an Ohio bankruptcy judge for his conduct in connection with an adversary proceeding he brought on behalf of a client against a Chapter 7 debtor. The lawyer was vindicated, though, after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (the “BAP”) reversed the bankruptcy court on appeal.

Background Facts

Bankruptcy is a process that permits people to discharge debts, but not all debts are dischargeable. In a recent opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) reversed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Bankruptcy Court”) ruling that a state court criminal restitution claim is dischargeable.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

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