With judgment No. 5945 of 11 March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation addressed a key issue under EC Regulation No. 1346/2000: the location of the “center of main interests” (COMI) of the company according to factors recognizable by third parties.

The Case

The Court of Milan with a decision on 28 May 2014 addressed some heavily debated legal issues: the Bankruptcy Courtmay authorize the debtor to terminate credit facility agreements when the debtor submitted a pre-filing for concordato preventivo (known as “concordato con riserva”)?

The Case

The institution of composition with creditors enabling business continuity (Article 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) and its impact on the legislative framework of public contracts (on the matter see “Composition with creditors enabling business continuity in public contracts”, June 2013, in www.nctm.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CPCP) have given rise to contrasting applications of case-law, and as matters stand, the institution is often applied in different ways.

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.

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background