Background

On 26 April 2016, the Italian Government has introduced a new reform to shorten the length of the recovery of credit, by approving the decree law no. 59 (the Decree), entered into force on 3 May 2016. The Decree  aims  at  fostering  and facilitating  the  recovery  of  credit throughout enforcement  and insolvency  proceedings.

The main innovations concern:

Directive 2014/59/EU (the "BRRD” or Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive), establishing a framework for recovery and resolution of banks and investment institutions, was implemented in Italy with the Legislative Decree Nos. 180/2015 and 181/2015

Introduction

Con il D.Lgs. 180/2015 e D.Lgs. 181/2015 è stata recepita la direttiva 2014/59/UE (c.d. “Direttiva BRRD”Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e di risoluzione deglienti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento

Premessa

The immediate application of the new section no. 120 TUB and the scope of its anatocism prohibition is the centre of a case-law dispute which originated from a series of inhibitory proceedings promoted by a consumer association in order to make ascertain the unlawful capitalization practiced by Banks of the passive interests in bank accounts. Now that said interim proceedings has been defined a first summary can be drawn.

Two main interpretative options so far emerged:

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

The Tribunal of Milan with a decree of 17 September 2015 ruled that the enforcement of a bank guarantee, pending therequest by the debtor to authorize the stay or termination of the same in a concordato preventivo procedure, bars thedecision by the Tribunal

The case

In U.S. Capital Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 2018 WL 1143822, No. 15-1509 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an appellate court should apply a deferential standard of review to a bankruptcy court’s decision as to whether a creditor is a "nonstatutory" insider of the debtor for the purpose of determining whether the creditor’s vote in favor of a nonconsensual chapter 11 plan can be counted.

Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

In Short

The Situation: In In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., secured noteholders argued that replacement notes distributed to them under a cram-down chapter 11 plan should bear market-rate interest rather than the lower formula rate proposed in the plan and that they were entitled to a make-whole premium.

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law.