L’istituto del concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale (art. 186-bis della legge fallimentare) e il suo impatto sul quadro normativo dei contratti pubblici (sul punto cfr. “Concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale nei contratti pubblici”, giugno 2013, in www.nctm.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CPCP) hanno dato origine ad applicazioni di giurisprudenza contrastanti, che portano allo stato attuale ad identificare per esso diverse modalità applicative.

a) Continuità diretta e indiretta

Nella precedente esperienza applicativa del concordato, la conservazione dei complessi aziendali in esercizio assai di rado avveniva in capo allo stesso imprenditore, quanto piuttosto solo in via “indiretta”, attraverso la formale cessione ad un soggetto terzo, procedendo, prima del deposito della domanda di ammissione al concordato, alla concessione in affitto al fine di preservarne l'operatività.

The procedure of composition with creditors aimed at business continuity (“concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale”, provided by art. 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) has a major impact on the rules governing public contracts, above all with reference to the requirements requested both for the participation of economic operators in the public tender procedures and for their capacity to enter into agreements with public entities.

Summary and implications

This note provides a short summary of receivership and covers some of the most frequently asked questions. The note is intended to be a general overview and specific advice should be taken in individual cases.

The appointment of a receiver is one of the formal enforcement options typically available to lenders who have security over property assets situated in England and Wales. The receiver’s job is to realise those assets and use the proceeds to discharge the debt due to the charge-holder.

This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into plans to restructure the Royal Mail.

On 17 May 2011, the GC annulled a Commission decision requiring recovery of state aid from Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek (TB). The case concerned the actions taken by the Polish authorities in implementing a plan to restructure the steel industry. The GC found that the Commission had been correct to find that TB had benefited from a decision by the Polish authorities not to apply for bankruptcy but to allow the company to continue to operate without repaying its debts.

In previous issues of TransAtlantic, we reported that the UK Pensions Regulator had issued contribution notices (CNs) and financial support directions (FSDs) against insolvent companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. Click here for the June story on Nortel (see page 5); click here for the November story on Lehman (see page 7).

The High Court has decided that financial support directions can be issued against insolvent companies as well as solvent ones.

The administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman Brothers and Nortel groups had argued that the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel had no legal power to determine that it would be reasonable to issue FSDs against these companies. The High Court disagreed and decided:

Summary and implications

Almost exactly one year on from the Order* coming into force, many people remain unaware that it is no longer possible to appoint an administrative receiver over an overseas incorporated company.

Lenders and indeed insolvency practitioners should be aware that this is the case even when dealing with qualifying floating charges created before 15 September 2003 but alternative strategies, including administration, may be pursued to the same effect.

Administrative receivership