A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors

The case

Two companies having an indebtedness mainly towards banks and leasing companies, jointly submitted to the Court a request for confirmation of a debt restructuring agreement providing for a two-year moratorium of payment of principal and a restructuring of interests.

The Court of Florence (November 2, 2016) confirmed that the debtor can retain part of his assets, with a view to support the company’s recovery and in derogation to principles of liability of the debtor.

The case

A company applied for concordato preventivo, based on a plan providing for, on one side, the sale of those assets not functional to the business and, on the other side, the company to continue to trade retaining those other assets which were needed for the activities to be carried on.

February 2017 N° 19 Fondo Atlante and the future for the financial institutions Tommaso dalla Massara Some news on insolvency procedures Fabio Marelli EU Commission first draft of ePrivacy Regulation Rocco Panetta Insurance Distribution Directive Guido Foglia ACROSS THE EUNIVERSE 2 In this Issue Editorial Giovanni Moschetta, Bernard O'Connor 3 What's App in Europe 4 Bernard O'Connor The next big thing for European data protection: EU Commission publishes first draft of ePrivacy Regulation to be discussed during GDPR transition period 6 Rocco Panetta, Francesco Armaroli Critical features of

Introduction

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:

Rumors of another recession multiplied as the tumultuous second year of the Trump administration came to a close. Highlights of 2018 included a simmering trade war with China; political upheaval after the House of Representatives was retaken by Democrats in the midterm elections; mayhem in financial markets; and, in December, the beginning of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, triggered by lawmakers’ refusal to provide $5.7 billion in funding for a U.S.-Mexican border wall.

In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 22, 2017), that, without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions which "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

Recent Developments

Amid the explosion of trading in claims against distressed and bankrupt entities, courts in recent years have issued numerous rulings of interest to both buyers and sellers.

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.