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.
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 Cassation (decision No. 4915 of 27 February 2017) lowered the threshold allowing the Bankruptcy Court to review the feasibility of the concordato preventivo proposal.
The case
According to decision no. 17441, of 31 August 2016, of the First Division of the Supreme Civil Court, the liability of directors without management power cannot originate from a general failure to supervise – that would be identified in the facts as a strict liability – but must be attributed to the breach of the duty to act in an informed way, on the basis of both information to be released by executive directors and information that non-executive directors can gather on their own initiative.
The Court of Ancona (11 October 2016) ruled that the debtor can continue to draw from existing revolving facilities, to be considered as pending contracts that do not require an authorization by the Court
The case
The Court of Appeals of Turin (5 August 2016) and the Court of Milan (25 June 2016) deal with cases of bankruptcy and concordato preventivo of the assigned debtor and confirm a broad interpretation of the limit to set-off set forth by Article 56 second para. of the Italian Bankruptcy Law
The case
The Court of Pavia (14 October 2016) denies confirmation of a concordato preventivo plan and proposal approved by the creditors, based on the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner that the plan is clearly unsuitable to cure the debtor’s state of financial and economic distress
The case
The Court of Milan (29 September 2016) confirmed that the concordato preventivocan be terminated as a consequence of the mere fact that a “material” breach occurred, as provided by Art. 186 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law.
The case
The Court of Milan (10 November 2016) issued a confirmation order of a debt restructuring agreement pursuant to Art. 182-bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law on a petition by an investment fund, which was deemed as a legal entity on its own right and not only a separate estate within the SGR which is the legal representative of the fund
The case
Il Tribunale di Milano (29 settembre 2016) conferma l’interpretazione secondo cui il concordato deve essere risolto in conseguenza del solo fatto oggettivo dell’inadempimento che non sia di “scarsa importanza” ai sensi del secondo comma dell’art. 186 l.f.
Il caso