Incorporating the principles contained in EU insolvency directives, the new Italian Insolvency Code affirms the goal of resolving crises in the least traumatic way possible for the business. This represents a fundamental innovation of the underlying philosophy of Italian insolvency law and the remedies envisaged for companies in distress so that they may successfully restructure their outstanding exposure. Below, we provide a general overview of the Insolvency Code and its key remedies.
The Insolvency Code in brief
中伦观点
引言
在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。
模拟案例引入
2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。
Co-author: Ben Gibson, Barrister, Victorian Bar
Case Name:Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2
Issues: Voidable transactions and unfair preferences: abolition of the peak indebtedness rule, the existence of a continuing business relationship.
The abolition of the peak indebtedness rule will likely reduce the quantum of unfair preference claims where there is a running account and render some claims unviable for further pursuit.
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission unveiled a draft directive (2022/0408 (COD)) (the “Directive”) proposing to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency laws across the European Union[1].
Recent consideration of statutory insolvent trading duties by appellate courts provides fresh guidance for managing these risks. Three decisions stand out: two recent, one anticipated. Collectively, they provide (or will provide) a critical roadmap for directors operating businesses in precarious financial positions.
The appetiser: Debut Homes
The recent decision by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re LTL Management, LLC did not address or negate the viability of divisive mergers of entities under the Texas Business Organizations Code (the “TBOC”). Various news articles concerning the decision have reported that the court disapproved of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” transactions undertaken by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the face of its mounting talc tort litigation.
CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.
Issues
The court considered two key issues:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016（2016年インド破産倒産法）は、それまで経済的に実現不可能なオンデマンド処理であった倒産処理のワンストップ・ソリューションとして導入されました。Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにおいて、インド最高裁判所は、同法の憲法上の正当性を支持しつつ、同法は債権者のための単なる回収法ではなく、むしろ企業債務者の再建のためのものであることを強調してきました[i]。Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v.
The Supreme Court of Canada's ("SCC") recent decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v.