The Court of Forlì (3 February 2016) allowed a competitive bid process to select the purchaser of abusiness unit during the phase following a concordato “pre-‐filing”
The case
The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?
The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.
Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.
OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding at trial of HHJ Bird (sitting in the High Court) that save where there is fraud, a debtor is not legally obliged to volunteer information to an assignee regarding his arrangement with the assignor. The dispute arose because Bibby, a factor (and ‘Assignee’), purchased debts from Morleys Ltd (‘the Assignor’), owed to it by HFD Ltd and MCD Ltd (the ‘Customers’/‘Debtors’). The contract between the Assignor and Customers was such that the latter were entitled to a rebate, at the beginning of each calendar year, on purchases made.
Summary
“It is possible for the by-‐law to provide that the equity capital, which is mentioned by article 2437-‐ter, second paragraph, of the Civil Code for the purpose of liquidation of shares in case of withdrawal (but also, in case of mortis causa pre-‐emption right, because of the statement of the article 2355-‐bis, third paragraph of the Civil Code) is assessed pursuant to the criterion which consider the use of assets on the going concern perspective”
Two recent judgements deal with the issue in two different cases: the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere(17 February 2016) allows a partial payment of VAT, contrary to precedents of the Supreme Court and ofthe Constitutional Court, while the Court of Appeals of Bologna (24 December 2015) confirms that theVAT refund claim’s satisfaction depends on the value of the related assets
The case
The Supreme Court confirms in the recent decision No. 2538 of 9 February 2016 that the rules regardingthe effects of termination of a pending leasing contract, by choice of the receiver, cannot be applied tothe different case of termination for breach which has already occurred
The case