Il 27 settembre 2024 è stato pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale il D.Lgs. 13 settembre 2024, n. 136 (“Correttivo-ter”), è il terzo – e attualmente ultimo – Decreto Correttivo al Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza. Il novello decreto correttivo ha apportato modificazioni sostanziali a numerosi istituti del Codice della Crisi.
On September 27, 2024, Legislative Decree No. 136 of September 13, 2024 (“Correttivo-ter”) was published in the Official Gazette. This represents the third—and currently final—Corrective Decree to the Business Crisis and Insolvency Code. The new corrective decree has introduced substantial amendments to several provisions of the Crisis Code. Beyond minor stylistic and detailed adjustments, the Correttivo-ter both incorporates certain practices or clarifies interpretive uncertainties and introduces some highly anticipated innovations for practitioners.
Deeds of Company Arrangement – Insured Claims
Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations Pty Ltd as Trustee v PCA (Qld) Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] QSC 178 ("Destination Brisbane")
In Destination Brisbane two questions, which concerned the entitlements of insured creditors under a DoCA, arose for consideration in the context of an application for judicial advice:
The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).
Background
Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.
Introduction
On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.
On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).
It is not uncommon for contractors, in several industry sectors, to contract with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), whose day-to-day management is effectively controlled by a parent company, and the SPV has with little to no assets beyond cash flow provided by its parent. In this article we look at what a claimant could do outside of the traditional insolvency process in circumstances where the SPV goes into a form of external administration such as administration or liquidation and there are no assets available to the external administrators.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Introduction
In this case the Court applied traditional constructive trust principles to disputed facts in order to determine whether a specific property came within the estate of a bankrupt. It will be of interest to practitioners advising in the area of challenged transfers in the context of insolvency.
The Trustees in the bankruptcy of Shaun Collins made an application pursuant to s.339 Insolvency Act 1986, to challenge a disposition of land. The land in question was a flat and the disposition was a 2021 transfer of a flat in London.
On 20 November 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Kireeva v Bedzhamov1. The court ruled that a Russian bankruptcy trustee has no claim over a bankrupt's property in Belgrave Square on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction to assist a foreign bankruptcy trustee in respect of immovable property located in England and Wales and that such property is unaffected by a foreign bankruptcy order. This decision reaffirms the immovables rule, which (subject to exceptions) protects immovable property such as land from foreign bankruptcy claims.