What’s going on in Brussels? A lot. And trying to follow it all can be difficult.

So this section of AcrossEU seeks to provide you with an overview of what each of the three main EU institutions are doing.

The Commission

The legislative process regarding the proposal of the Parliament and of the Council to amend the Regulation (whichwould introduce various changes as proposed by the Commission in order to address issues arisen in the enforcementof the Regulation) is approaching its conclusion

Introduction

The decision of the Court of Treviso of 26 February 2015 admitted a concordato proposal providing for a partial payment of receivables having a lien over the entire estate and for payment of unsecured creditors out of the higher liquidation value of the debtor’s assets according to the concordato plan, as compared to the bankruptcy liquidation value

The case

Two recent decisions of the Court of Reggio Emilia (18 December 2014) and of the Court of Palermo (13 October 2014) followed the Supreme Court’s case law according to which companies  held  by  public agencies can be declared bankrupt, even in case they provide “in house” services mainly to shareholders

The cases

The Italian Supreme Court (judgement No. 14552 of 26 June 2014), ruled that the disclosure of acts in fraud carried out by the debtor causes the admission to concordato preventivo to be revoked according to Article 173 IBL, even in case of approval by the creditors.

The case

The law of the State where an insolvency procedure is opened, applicable according to Art. 4, second paragraph, lett. m) of the Regulation (lex concursus), can be unenforceable pursuant to Art. 13 of the Regulation if according to the lawapplicable to the contract (lex contractus) the transaction cannot be challenged.

The case

The decision of the Court of Rovereto of 13 October 2014 and the Court of Bergamo of 26 September 2013 tookopposite stands on the issue of the allocation, for the purposes of the concordato preventivo proposal by the debtor, ofcash generated by future operation of the business following confirmation of the proposal.

The case

In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)

This article provides an essential update for insolvency practitioners on the proposed Insolvency Rules 2015 and the end of the insolvency exemption on Conditional Fee Agreements.

The end of the CFA?