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”.
In our June 2016 update, we discussed the Court of Appeal's decisions in Madsen-Ries v Petera[2016] NZCA 103, Calvert v Reynolds [2016] NZCA 151, and Petterson v Browne [2016] NZCA 189. In all three cases leave was sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted to the applicant companies in Petterson v Browne, but declined in all other cases. 
In the recent High Court case of McKay v Johnson & Smith [2016] NZHC 1691, a liquidator, Geoff Martin Smith, allegedly sent a notice under s 305 of the Companies Act 1993 to the bank that had security over a company in liquidation. The bank did not respond to the notice and Mr Smith alleged that the bank had lost its security. The bank maintained it never received the notice.
The Court was satisfied that the notice had been fabricated because:
In Advicewise People Ltd v Trends Publishing International Ltd, four creditors of Trends Publishing International Ltd (Trends) successfully challenged a compromise approved under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993.
The High Court's ruling in Priest v Ross Asset Management Ltd (In Liq) [2016] NZHC 1803 arose out of the devastation of the Ponzi scheme effected by David Ross of Ross Asset Management Limited (In Liquidation) (RAM) and Dagger Nominees Limited (Dagger). For many years RAM and Dagger reported spectacular returns for investors before their illusion was revealed, the Financial Markets Authority became involved and liquidators were appointed.
In Petterson v Hutt a liquidator sought an interim injunction preventing any enforcement steps being taken under two general security agreements (GSAs). In the substantive proceeding, the liquidator sought to have the GSAs set aside.
In Madsen-Ries & Anor v Donovan Drainage and Earthmoving Limited [2016] NZCA 301, the liquidators of a failed property development company, Te Pua, applied to set aside as insolvent transactions a number of payments which Te Pua made to a drainage contractor, Donovan.
In CGES Limited (in liquidation and receivership) v Kelly [2016] NZHC 1465, the liquidator of CGES Limited brought claims against the former directors of the company for breaches of duties owed to the company. The High Court held: