The scope and extent of debts that may be discharged is an often litigated issue in bankruptcy. In a recent Chapter 13 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the bankruptcy court considered whether an otherwise dischargeable government penalty debt is nondischargeable if the debt arises from fraud^.[1]

The Tribunal of Modena with a decision of 6 June 2015 stated that a supplier can not refuse to perform its obligation and ask for the payment of previous claims by raising a non-fulfilment of the debtor’s obligations objection. Payment of such claims can then be made only after confirmation of the concordato by the Court.

The case

The Tribunal of Milan, with a decision of 5 May 2015, ruled that Art. 104-ter of the Italian Bankruptcy Law is applicable to the lease of business entered into before the declaration of bankruptcy and, therefore, the receiver can terminate pending contracts according to Art. 72 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law

The case

With the decision of 2 September 2015, No. 17461, the Court of Cassation confirmed that secured creditors’ deferred payment amounts to a partial satisfaction and has confirmed the criteria for determining the economic loss arising out of the delay, for allowing these creditors to vote.

The case

Lawmakers made a few changes to the concordato rules with the foreseeable result of restricting significantly the access by debtors to the procedure, shifting the main focus  from  liquidation  plans  to schemes allowing to preserve the business as a going concern

New rules introduced upon conversion of Art. 4 of law decree No. 83/2015

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

The Bankruptcy Code is federal law. It affords debtors protections - including the automatic stay and debt discharge injunction - that hold creditors at bay.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is also federal law. It contains limitations on what a debt collector can do when attempting to collect a debt.

Because debts - and more particularly attempts to collect those debts - drive people into bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are sometimes forced to grapple with questions of how the Bankruptcy Code and FDCPA interact and impact each other.

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