Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.
Il caso
Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato
Il caso
Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.
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
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 28, 2016)
The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability action. The plaintiffs had obtained a state court default judgment against the debtor for damages caused to them when the debtor drove to their home and shot one of the plaintiffs and injured the other plaintiff with flying debris. The court holds that collateral estoppel bars the debtor from relitigating the issue of whether the debtor caused a willful and malicious injury to the plaintiffs. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 29, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2016)
Following trial, the bankruptcy court excepts from discharge a debt arising from a loan, but holds the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with respect to other debts. The court also finds that a lien was not created where there was no proof of an actual levy, but a seperate judgment lien is held valid. The court denies the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. Opinion below.
Judge: Stout
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas, Arvin & Adams, James G. Adams, III, David E. Arvin
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