Introduction

Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.

Il caso

Il Tribunale di Milano (10 novembre 2016) ha disposto l’omologazione ex art. 182-bis l.fall. richiesta da un fondo, ritenuto soggetto di diritto autonomo rispetto alla SGR per mezzo della quale agisce e non solo un patrimonio separato

Il caso

Una SGR ha chiesto l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti per conto di un fondo comune di investimento immobiliare di tipo chiuso, deducendone la situazione di incapienza patrimoniale.

The Court of Pavia (14 October 2016) denies confirmation of a concordato preventivo plan and proposal approved by the creditors, based on the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner that the plan is clearly unsuitable to cure the debtor’s state of financial and economic distress

The case

The Court of Milan (29 September 2016) confirmed that the concordato preventivocan be terminated as a consequence of the mere fact that a “material” breach occurred, as provided by Art. 186 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law.

The case

The Court of Milan (10 November 2016) issued a confirmation order of a debt restructuring agreement pursuant to Art. 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law on a petition by an investment fund, which was deemed as a legal entity on its own right and not only a separate estate within the SGR which is the legal representative of the fund

The case

The Court of Ancona (11 October 2016) ruled that the debtor can continue to draw from existing revolving facilities, to be considered as pending contracts that do not require an authorization by the Court

The case

The Court of Appeals of Turin (5 August 2016) and the Court of Milan (25 June 2016) deal with cases of bankruptcy and concordato preventivo of the assigned debtor and confirm a broad interpretation of the limit to set-off set forth by Article 56 second para. of the Italian Bankruptcy Law

The case

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims, holding that the defendant’s conduct—filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts—does not violate the FDCPA. SeeIn re Dubois, 2016 WL4474156 (4^th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016). In the case, each of the two plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and the defendant filed proofs of claim in the plaintiffs’ cases.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the loan was accelerated could still be within the applicable statute of limitations. SeeIn re: Gordon Allen Washington; Gordon Allen Washington v. Bank of New York Mellon, As Tr. for the Certificate-Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5, 2016 WL 5827439 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2016). In the case, the borrowed executed a mortgage and promissory note in February 2007.