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

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

In its recent decision in the case of Perfect Pies Limited (in receivership) and Pearse Farrell v Chupn Limited [2015] 11 JIC 0607, the Commercial Court has considered the difficult question of the unreasonable withholding of consent to the assignment of a commercial lease. This case involved interesting issues, in particular around a landlord potentially seeking to use the opportunity of an application for consent to assignment to pursue "ulterior motives" – in this case, to obtain possession of the premises.

Background 

In this unusual case the High Court considered the enforceability of a contract for the sale of land to a construction company now in receivership, with much of the argument surrounding whether there was in fact a sufficient note or memorandum in writing for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds (Ireland) 1695.

Facts

Facts