With the decision of 16 September 2015, No. 18131, the Court of Cassation settled a long-standing debate, ruling that the receiver can not terminate an agreement to sell real estate property, entered into by the company which is later declared bankrupt, if the purchaser has registered with the Land Registry, before bankruptcy, its claim to the Court to be transferred title to the property.

The immediate application of the new section no. 120 TUB and the scope of its anatocism prohibition is the centre of a case-law dispute which originated from a series of inhibitory proceedings promoted by a consumer association in order to make ascertain the unlawful capitalization practiced by Banks of the passive interests in bank accounts. Now that said interim proceedings has been defined a first summary can be drawn.

Two main interpretative options so far emerged:

Con il D.Lgs. 180/2015 e D.Lgs. 181/2015 è stata recepita la direttiva 2014/59/UE (c.d. “Direttiva BRRD”Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e di risoluzione deglienti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento

Premessa

Directive 2014/59/EU (the "BRRD” or Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive), establishing a framework for recovery and resolution of banks and investment institutions, was implemented in Italy with the Legislative Decree Nos. 180/2015 and 181/2015

Introduction

The Tribunal of Monza (12 October 2015) has adopted a broad application of second para. of Art. 56 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law which excludes – only for receivables non yet overdue – that a debtor of the insolvent may offset its debt against receivables which he has acquired after the declaration of bankruptcy or in the year before.

The case

The Court of Bergamo (23 December 2015) authorized a business lease agreement even though a previous public auction could not be held due to the urgency of the case, considering that the mandatory provisions of Art. 163-­‐bis of the Italian Bankruptcy Law apply only if consistent with the “pre-­‐ concordato” phase.

The case

The Court of Como, by order of 27 May 2015, authorised the Judicial Liquidator to settle the dispute with  the lawyer who advised the company in the concordato preventivo procedure, and this even against the advice of the Creditors’ Committee.

The case

With the decision of 16 September 2015, No. 18131, the Court of Cassation settled a long-standing debate, ruling that the trustee can not terminate an agreement to sell real estate property, entered into by the company which is later declared bankrupt, if the purchaser has registered with the Land Registry, before bankruptcy, its claim to the Court to be transferred title to the property.

The case

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 Tribunal of Modena with a decision of 6 June 2015 stated that a supplier can not refuse to perform its obligation and ask for the payment of previous claims by raising a non-fulfilment of the debtor’s obligations objection. Payment of such claims can then be made only after confirmation of the concordato by the Court.

The case