With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case
The Court of Prato (30 April 2017) confirms that the concordato filing stays (and does not instead terminate) pending enforcement actions by individual creditors and clarifies that the term for the creditor to restart the proceeding runs from the decision of the Court concluding the concordato
1. Introduction
The new Regulation follows on the path of Regulation No. 1346/2000, representing the last step of a process which has been started years ago. European Union authorities resorted also to other means in this direction: aside to the Regulation, a Recommendation has been issued in 2014, inviting Member States to adopt internal procedures more favourable to restructuring (rather than liquidating) distressed businesses.
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.
The Court of Modena (8 February 2016) challenged precedents of the Court of Cassation ruling thatdelayed payment of secured creditors is allowed only if the timing would not be shorter in bankruptcyliquidation
The case
Creditors being now allowed to make competing concordato proposals restricts the exclusive powers of the debtor, which are now limited to the choice to commence the procedure, while on the other side it is now always mandatory that a competitive bid process is carried on for the sale of business units and assets, when the proposal of the debtor provides for an already designated buyer
Concordato competing proposals by creditors
Art. 57 para. 6-bis TUF (introduced by Legislative Decree No. 42/2012) provides for a special procedure of judicial liquidation of investment funds in an insolvency situation, where debts cannot be satisfied in full out of the fund’s assets, but does not state whether investment funds are eligible for concordato preventivo as an alternative to liquidation.
The issues
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."
In Short
The Situation: Section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (WA) ("Act")provides that if a creditor and a company in liquidation have mutual dealings, the creditor must offset any sum the creditor owes to the company in liquidation against debt owed by the company.
The Question: Does the existence of a third party security interest over circulating assets (floating charge) which are intended to be set off against other debts prevent the dealings from being "mutual"?