Lawmakers introduce further measures in order to stimulate new loans after the pre-filing for concordato preventivo or for a debt restructuring agreement, when it is urgent to prevent an unrecoverable prejudice to the business
The context
The Court of Cassation with the decision of 28 April 2015, No. 8575 ruled that no amendment to the concordato plan orproposal, even though more favourable to the creditors, can be made by the debtor after the end of the voting process,in a case, though, where the decision could have been influenced by the fact that the debtor himself had waived its rightto confirmation of the concordato proposal.
The case
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
The Court Monza decided upon a petition filed by the managing director of a company, after confirmation of a “concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale” proposal, seeking an authorization to perform certain acts not in the ordinary course of business.
The case
The Tribunal of Milan allowed a concordato preventivo proposal to be amended, providing that additional resources for the creditors could be made available through a lien on real estate property belonging to a shareholder of the company.
The case
NCTM Studio Legale Associato assisted a company in filing and subsequently amending a concordato preventivo proposal before the Tribunal of Milan.
With a decree of 11 March 2015 the Tribunal of Reggio Emilia, recalling the case-law principle of the socalled “consecution” of insolvency procedures, rejected the pleading in the proof of debt procedure of a creditor who requested its own post-concordato debt towards the then bankrupt company to be set off against its own pre-concordato receivable.
The case
BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO. 4 JULY–AUGUST 2022 1 IN THIS ISSUE 1 U.S.
In Short
The Situation: In February 2020, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) expanded the kinds of transactions that may be voidable if a company is being wound up to include asset disposals undertaken as part of illegal phoenixing schemes. Such disposals are termed as "creditor-defeating dispositions" in the legislation.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO.