Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.
Directive 2014/59/EU (the "BRRD” or Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive), establishing a framework for recovery and resolution of banks and investment institutions, was implemented in Italy with the Legislative Decree Nos. 180/2015 and 181/2015
Introduction
The Tribunal of Monza (12 October 2015) has adopted a broad application of second para. of Art. 56 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law which excludes – only for receivables non yet overdue – that a debtor of the insolvent may offset its debt against receivables which he has acquired after the declaration of bankruptcy or in the year before.
The case
Il Regolamento (UE) n. 2015/848 ha tenuto fermo il principio per cui ciascuna società è soggetta ad unaprocedura nello Stato Membro in cui si trova il proprio COMI, ma ha introdotto forme di cooperazionetra gli amministratori ed i giudici delle singole procedure
Il Regolamento (CE) n. 2000/1346
Con il D.Lgs. 180/2015 e D.Lgs. 181/2015 è stata recepita la direttiva 2014/59/UE (c.d. “Direttiva BRRD”Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e di risoluzione deglienti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento
Premessa
Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).
With the decision of 16 September 2015, No. 18131, the Court of Cassation settled a long-standing debate, ruling that the receiver can not terminate an agreement to sell real estate property, entered into by the company which is later declared bankrupt, if the purchaser has registered with the Land Registry, before bankruptcy, its claim to the Court to be transferred title to the property.
The immediate application of the new section no. 120 TUB and the scope of its anatocism prohibition is the centre of a case-law dispute which originated from a series of inhibitory proceedings promoted by a consumer association in order to make ascertain the unlawful capitalization practiced by Banks of the passive interests in bank accounts. Now that said interim proceedings has been defined a first summary can be drawn.
Two main interpretative options so far emerged:
Regulation No. 2015/848 is an update and an enhancement of European Union rules on cross-border insolvencyprocedures, with respect to Regulation No. 1346/2000 currently applicable. We start here a series of newsletters wherewe will address the new rules which will come into effect starting from 2017.
The Supreme Court (decision No. 20559 of 13 October 2015), decided that a single application for admission to theprocedure is not admissible if it involves a group, with a single proposal for all the creditors of the different companies,although the relevant assets and liabilities are kept formally separated.
The case