Insolvency and Restructuring

The experience we have accumulated both in providing assistance to companies in distress, and in carrying out appointments received from the judicial Authorities (bankruptcy trustee, receiver, assignee in bankruptcy) enables us to tackle and solve any question pertaining to the company’s hardship.

An entrepreneur who is experiencing a hardship situation may encounter problems that, unless they are adequately confronted, may have devastating consequences: (s)he needs certainties, guidelines, continuous assistance and solutions adopted rapidly and effectively.

We are aware of it, and our aim is to provide full-fledged assistance, characterised by those features, in every phase of the hardship: in finding and defining the most appropriate procedure for its solution, in opening the procedure and organising the proceeding, in proceedings initiated by the bankruptcy bodies (e.g. bankruptcy rescindment and indemnification initiatives) as well as in the disputes pending during the procedure (e.g. objections to the liabilities), in the settlement of receivables in the composition and in the procedures for the preservation of asset values, in the management and liquidation of the assets and in the allocation of the revenues.

Of significance is the experience accumulated with regard to the initiatives to be taken to request access to the composition with creditors as an alternative to bankruptcy or to promote a bankruptcy arrangement at the completion of the bankruptcy procedure.

Our areas of activity are:

  • bankruptcy
  • composition with creditors
  • compulsory winding-up
  • extraordinary administration of large companies experiencing distress


Irresponsible lending: the bankruptcy administrator has standing to act against lender banks

The bankruptcy administrator has standing to act against the bank for irresponsible lending, in the case of an unlawful new loan or maintenance of ongoing contracts, which has caused a decrease in the assets of the bankrupt person, for the direct damage to the company resulting from the loan and for the injury to the entire class of creditors owing to the loss of the asset guarantee pursuant to Article 2740 of the Civil Code.

The competent Court must provide for the judicial receiver’s remuneration even if the composition with creditors is rejected

With judgment no. 15789 of 7 June 2021, the Supreme Court, while taking into account its previous rulings to the contrary, held that the phrase “at the end of the proceedings” in the third paragraph of Article 165 of the Bankruptcy Law implies that, following the end - for whatever reason - of the composition with creditors, the Court with jurisdiction over regulation of the competition, notwithstanding its formal termination, still has the power to determine the compensation due to the judicial receiver, once all his activities have been completed.

Allowance of claims in bankruptcy subject to reservation: conditional claims and guarantor’s claim enforced after the insolvency adjudication

The comment examines the case of the allowance of a claim in bankruptcy subject to reservation from the point of view of its framing within the insolvency rules and focuses on aspects relating to the allowance of conditional claims. In particular, the issue of the allowance of the guarantor’s claim, jointly and severally liable with the bankrupt, which is enforced after the insolvency adjudication, is addressed, and the different directions of case law and doctrine are illustrated.

The so-called “posthumous withdrawal” under consideration by the Court of Cassation

The order of the Court of Cassation comes after a conflict of case law on the substance - recent examples of which are given - concerning the effects of the petitioning creditor’s withdrawal after the adjudication in bankruptcy is pronounced. The Court held that the so-called “posthumous” withdrawal is ineffective, with very concise reasoning that does not reveal the logic behind the decision. The comment offers an interpretation that, while agreeing with the decision of the Court of Cassation, attempts to show that it is a necessary consequence of the effectiveness of the adjudication in bankruptcy.

Preliminary sale agreement and bankruptcy

With their decision no. 18131/2015, filed on 16 September 2015 (L. A. Rovelli presiding - R. Vivaldi reporting judge), the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court affirmed that the receiver of the promissory seller may not exercise the right to terminate the preliminary agreement under Article 72 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law with respect to the promissory buyer, if the latter transcribed, before the declaration of bankruptcy, the petition for performance in specific form proposed in accordance with Article 2932 of the Italian Civil Code and said petition was granted with a decision which in turn was transcribed.

Corporate groups in arrangement with creditors procedure is non-actionable.

With its decision no. 20559/2015, filed on 13 October 2015 (A. Ceccherini Presiding – L. Nazzicone Reporting Judge), the Supreme Court, 1st Civil Section, declared that a so-called corporate groups in arrangement with creditors procedure was non-actionable before the same court, in the absence of positive laws and regulations covering the phenomenon and governing its jurisdiction, the forms of complaints, the appointment of the bodies and the formation of the classes and of the volumes of assets and liabilities; indeed, according to current laws and regulations, a composition with creditors may be proposed solely by each of the companies belonging to the group before the court having local jurisdiction for each individual procedure, without possibility of confusion between assets and liabilities.