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.

According to Legislative Decree. No. 175/2014, in case of defaulting transferee / buyer, the transferor / supplier is entitled to recover the VAT originally paid to the Treasury, under the condition that the transferee / buyer - who has not paid his debt - has entered into a debt restructuring agreement with creditors pursuant to Article 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL) or into an out-of-court reorganization plans pursuant to Article 67, third paragraph, letter d) of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL)

The New Provision

With a decree of 11 March 2015 the Tribunal of Reggio Emilia, recalling the case-law principle of the socalled “consecution” of insolvency procedures, rejected the pleading in the proof of debt procedure of a creditor who requested its own post-concordato debt towards the then bankrupt company to be set off against its own pre-concordato receivable.

The case

The Tribunal of Milan allowed a concordato preventivo proposal to be amended, providing that additional resources for the creditors could be made available through a lien on real estate property belonging to a shareholder of the company.

The case

NCTM Studio Legale Associato assisted a company in filing and subsequently amending a concordato preventivo proposal before the Tribunal of Milan.

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, recognized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case could be dismissed through a “structured dismissal” that deviates from the priority scheme set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.1 With its decision, the Third Circuit joined the Second Circuit in rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s per se exclusion on “structured dismissals” that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s prio

As the market for so-called “unitranche” credit facilities continues to increase, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had an opportunity recently to answer positively the question of whether bankruptcy courts will enforce the Agreement Among Lenders (“AAL”) (a form of intercreditor agreement) used in such structures.

Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.

The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.

The case

A  focus  on  the  different  interpretations  concerning  the  treatment  of  claims  for  costs  allocation  in  legal proceedings where a creditor is successful against a debtor admitted to a concordato preventivo procedure

The issue