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

Accept an unpalatable offer, or reject it and risk getting much less (or even nothing)? This is the choice stakeholders in chapter 11 bankruptcies increasingly face as a result of the proliferation of “deathtrap” provisions in plans of reorganization. For example, a class of bondholders may be forced to decide between accepting 60 cents on the dollar if they vote to accept a plan, or 40 cents if they reject. A class of equityholders may have to decide between accepting equity warrants, or rejecting and getting nothing.

 The Court of Rovigo (1st August 2016) confirms that the debtor shall regularly perform obligations arising after the concordato filing from an existing contract, when the debtor elects not to apply to the Court to terminate it

The case

 The Court of Milan (18 April 2016) sticks to its own precedents mandating automatic termination, notwithstanding the recent decision of the Court of Cassation (19 February 2016, No. 3324) requiring that an actual prejudice for the creditors be ascertained

The case

The consequences for cross-border insolvencies will largely depend on how Brexit is implemented, but will not affect schemes of arrangement

Foreword

Understanding and mastering cross-border insolvency requires a thorough knowledge of the different domestic insolvency regimes, all of which have distinctive procedures and rules on jurisdiction and recognition of foreign proceedings. Creditors and debtors look for the most favourable system: in this framework, the UK insolvency system is usually considered “creditor-focused”.

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code prohibits a bankruptcy trustee from avoiding “settlement payment[s]”, or payments “made in connection with a securities contract,” that are “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” qualifying financial entities, including financial institutions, stockbrokers, commodities brokers and others.