Il Decreto Legge n. 118/2021, proposto dalla Commissione Pagni ed approvato dal Consiglio dei Ministri ad inizio agosto, è stato pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 202 del 24 agosto (“Decreto”).

Con tale Decreto, il Governo ha introdotto nuove e ulteriori misure per contenere e superare le imponenti conseguenze prodotte dall’emergenza epidemiologica in materia di crisi d’impresa e risanamento aziendale.

Ob verwahrte kryptobasierte Vermögenswerte bereits mit Hilfe von Art. 242 SchKG ausgesondert werden konnten, war in der Lehre bisher umstritten. Am 1. August 2021 ist nun Art. 242a SchKG in Kraft getreten, der Klarheit bei der Aussonderung kryptobasierter Vermögenswerte schafft.

Neu wird zudem mit Art. 242b SchKG ein gesetzlicher Anspruch für den Zugang zu Daten geschaffen, die sich in Gewahrsam der Konkursmasse befinden. Damit wurde ein weitgehend unbestrittenes Anliegen ins SchKG aufgenommen.

Following its approval on 5th August 2021 by the Council of Ministers, the Law-Decree n. 118 was published on 24th August into the G.U. n. 202 about the topic of "Urgent measures in the field of business crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures in the field of justice". 

Firstly, the Law-Decree postpones the entry into force of the Italian Crisis Code until 16th May 2022 (Art. 1, letter a), further postponing to 31 December 2023 the “crisis alert related procedures” introduced by Article 12 of the Crisis Code. 

A seguito dell’approvazione avvenuta il 5 agosto 2021 da parte del Consiglio dei ministri, è stato pubblicato il 24 agosto in G.U. n 202 il Decreto-legge n. 118 in tema di “Misure urgenti in materia di crisi d’impresa e di risanamento aziendale, nonché ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di giustizia”. 

Il Decreto in primo luogo differisce l’entrata in vigore del Codice della Crisi al 16 maggio 2022 (art. 1, lett. a), posticipando ulteriormente al 31 dicembre 2023 le procedure di allerta della crisi introdotte dall'art. 12 CCI. 

On August 16, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an individual guarantor remained liable for more than $58 million in commercial debt, despite the individual’s claims that the lenders induced him to provide the guaranty under duress. See Lockwood International, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, NA, et al., Case No. 20-40324 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).

Good afternoon.

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal for the week of August 23, 2021.

There were three substantive civil decisions this week. Vu v. Canada (Attorney General) deals with discoverability and limitation periods related to the torts of false arrest and imprisonment. In dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed the date of an arrest is merely a presumptive date for the commencement of the limitation period – a date that can be rebutted.

The Situation: In Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that certain types of private student loans are not "obligation[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend" that are exempt from discharge in bankruptcy absent an undue hardship.

Priming transactions have grown in frequency during the pandemic, and with them, new ways to test the limits of credit agreement provisions. In a recent example, lenders to struggling restaurant-supplier TriMark entered into a transaction whereby they provided new money to TriMark, primed non-participating existing lenders, and then amended the existing credit agreement to broaden the contract’s “no-action clause” to make it difficult for non-participating lenders to bring suit under the credit agreement. It didn’t work.

For lenders dealing with troubled loans, a forbearance agreement or loan modification is often a great solution. An agreement may give borrowers breathing room to get back on the path to compliance or set the stage for a palatable exit strategy. A recent decision from the U.S.

The Supreme Court of India (SC) in Orator Marketing Private Limited v Samtex Desinz Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 2021, judgment dated 26th July 2021 has held that an interest free term loan constitutes a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The IBC provides that a financial debt is “a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money” furthered by an inclusive list of examples that may be considered as a financial debt.