A decision of the Court of Rimini dated 1st December 2016 states that the competitive bid process provided by Art. 163-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law is not mandatory when there is a strict connection between the lease of business and a proposed third-party loan to support the concordato proposal
The case
On July 19 2017, the National Treasury published the Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 2017. The bill proposes to clarify the tax implications that arise when a person assumes contingent liabilities under the corporate reorganisation rules contained in Sections 41 to 47 of the Income Tax Act (58/1962).
A Melomed Finance (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Harris Jeffrey (SGHC Case no: 2016/A5028) (Judgment handed down 23 June 2017)
The South Gauteng High Court, sitting as a court of appeal, recently handed down a judgment to the effect that a verbal acknowledgement of debt when made at an enquiry held into the affairs of a company, in terms of s417 and s418 of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (s417 enquiry), can be used as evidence in subsequent civil litigation to recover the amount so acknowledged.
The Court of Siracusa (5 June 2017) ruled that a pending lease of business contract continues on a regular basis, according to the restructuring plan, in case no bids are made according to Art. 163-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law
The case The debtor entered into a business lease contract with a third party before he filed for concordato preventivo.
On 27 July 2017 Law-Decree No. 99 of 25 June 2017 has been converted into law, which established special rules applicable to the «liquidazione coatta amministrativa»procedure, as well as the sale of the banking business units including assets and liabilities of the two banks, with the financial support by the Italian State. Nctm assisted Bank of Italy, the Ministry of Economy and the Liquidation Commissioners in the sale to Banca Intesa.
The Court of Prato (30 April 2017) confirms that the concordato filing stays (and does not instead terminate) pending enforcement actions by individual creditors and clarifies that the term for the creditor to restart the proceeding runs from the decision of the Court concluding the concordato
1. Introduction
The new Regulation follows on the path of Regulation No. 1346/2000, representing the last step of a process which has been started years ago. European Union authorities resorted also to other means in this direction: aside to the Regulation, a Recommendation has been issued in 2014, inviting Member States to adopt internal procedures more favourable to restructuring (rather than liquidating) distressed businesses.
Since 1956, legislation has required suretyship agreements to be embodied in a written document. A suretyship agreement involves three parties; simplistically if A does not pay B, then C will. C will step into the shoes of A and perform A’s obligations for them.
The introduction of business rescue proceedings by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) created uncertainty on various levels, in particular the extent and nature of certain rights previously enjoyed by creditors.
Our courts are making progress in finding a path through the muddy waters in this regard and every day a judgment is delivered that sheds some light on previous uncertain propositions.
La Cassazione 20 aprile 2017, n. 9983 conferma un proprio precedente secondo cui la banca può essere ritenuta responsabile per concorso nell’illecito, distinguendo la fattispecie da quella della concessione abusiva di credito