A successful purchase depends not just on negotiating a two-party transaction, but rather navigating the applicable process and dealing with all the competing interests successfully to allow a bid to succeed and closing to occur.

Q: Do opportunities exist for asset buyers in times of distress?

Creditors risk losing important rights in bankruptcy cases if deadlines are not met. Unfortunately, sometimes the existence or relevance of a deadline is not obvious to a creditor. Indeed, bankruptcy notices can be indecipherable and tempting to ignore, but failing to abide by deadlines comes at a high price. A recent opinion from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts underscores the need for creditors to take timely action to preserve rights, which is especially noteworthy given the current coronavirus pandemic and the expected increase in bankruptcy filings.

In In re Fortin, 598 B.R. 689 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether a lender may enforce a mortgage despite the unenforceability of the underlying promissory note. The court held that a lender’s inability to collect on a note due to the expiration of the statute of limitation for enforcement of the note does not adversely affect enforcement of the mortgage so long as the debt remains unpaid.

"When licensing trademark rights, you need to think about a host of issues at the outset including the impact of a licensor declaring bankruptcy."

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver

The case

The Supreme Court of Cassation (19 October 2017, No. 24682) discerns the respective scope of application of the criteria for the liquidation of compensation to the lawyer in case there was no specific agreement between the parties

The case