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

The Tribunal of Milan with a decree of 17 September 2015 ruled that the enforcement of a bank guarantee, pending therequest by the debtor to authorize the stay or termination of the same in a concordato preventivo procedure, bars thedecision by the Tribunal

The case

This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Pre-Packs

The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.

Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.

Background

Two recent decisions of the Court of Rovereto (16 July 2015) and of the Court of Rimini (1 October 2015) reached opposite conclusions.

The case

The Court of Como, by order of 27 May 2015, authorised the Judicial Liquidator to settle the dispute with  the lawyer who advised the company in the concordato preventivo procedure, and this even against the advice of the Creditors’ Committee.

The case