Law No. 232 of 11 December 2016 (Budget Law for 2017), in force since 1st January 2017, amended Art. 182-ter of the Italian Bankruptcy Law by repealing the tax consolidation rule and setting aside the interpretation that the tax settlement thereby provided could be chosen as an alternative to a proposal to tax and social security agencies, based on ordinary rules

The tax settlement before Law No. 232 of 2016

The Court of Bolzano (5 April 2016) confirms that revolving credit facility agreements providing forancillary set-off and collection terms in favour of the bank can be suspended, but the bank is protectedbecause the amounts collected are controlled by the Judicial Commissioner

The case

The Tribunal of Monza (12 October 2015) has adopted a broad application of second para. of Art. 56 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law which excludes – only for receivables non yet overdue – that a debtor of the insolvent may offset its debt against receivables which he has acquired after the declaration of bankruptcy or in the year before.

The case

According to Legislative Decree. No. 175/2014, in case of defaulting transferee / buyer, the transferor / supplier is entitled to recover the VAT originally paid to the Treasury, under the condition that the transferee / buyer - who has not paid his debt - has entered into a debt restructuring agreement with creditors pursuant to Article 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL) or into an out-of-court reorganization plans pursuant to Article 67, third paragraph, letter d) of the Italian Bankruptcy Law (IBL)

The New Provision

Traditionally in Italy the financial distress of a corporation was treated in a very strict way through proceedings aimed at the dissolution of the company, the sale of its assets and the replace of the directors with commissioners appointed by Public Bodies.

Indeed, should the enterprise become insolvent (i.e. not able to regularly pay its debts), it was unavoidably destined to be declared under bankruptcy or be put into extraordinary administration, a special form of insolvency procedure dedicated to the largest companies and aimed at preserving the workforce.

Traditionally in Italy the financial distress of a corporation was treated in a very strict way through proceedings aimed at the dissolution of the company, the sale of its assets and the replace of the directors with commissioners appointed by Public Bodies. Indeed, should the enterprise become insolvent (i.e. not able to regularly pay its debts), it was unavoidably destined to be declared under bankruptcy or be put into extraordinary administration, a special form of insolvency procedure dedicated to the largest companies and aimed at preserving the workforce.

Introduction

In November 2014 OW Bunker – one of the world's largest bunker suppliers and traders – filed for in-court restructuring for major parts of its business. This triggered a number of cases involving shipowners or operators that had contracted with OW, but had been physically supplied bunkers by a third party. In such cases, shipowners are at risk of having to pay their bunker debts twice if the physical supplier fails to receive payment under its supply contract with OW.

In its judgment of 9 December 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that once the debtor of a receivable has been notified of a right of pledge over that receivable, the holder of the right of pledge not only has the power to collect the amount due under the receivable but also is entitled to file for the debtor's bankruptcy if the debtor fails to pay this amount.

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bankruptcy whereby the bankruptcy receiver has wrongfully collected receivables which were pledged to a secured creditor and the total value of the assets of the bankrupt estate was insufficient to pay all debts, the bankruptcy receiver was allowed to recover its salary from the proceeds of that wrongful collection with priority over the claim of that secured creditor.

In its 18 December 2015 ABN/Marell judgement, the Dutch Supreme Court held that if secured debt is pledged, the holder of that right of pledge has the authority to enforce not only its own pledge but also the security connected with that pledged secured debt. Such chains of secured debt are not uncommon, but often parties are not aware that they exist. According to this new case law, security down the chain can be used in the enforcement of the primary security.