Beyond several stylistic and minor adjustments, the Amendment on the one hand incorporates certain practices and guidelines or resolves related doubts of interpretation and, on the other, introduces tools (above all the tax settlement in negotiated crisis resolution) widely expected by practitioners. One significant update includes minimum satisfaction thresholds for taxes and contributions claims during cram downs in restructuring agreements.

Below is a summary of the main changes.

1. Negotiated Crisis Resolution ("CNC")

- Requirements (Section 12): It is now expressly confirmed that even an insolvent entrepreneur can access the CNC.

- Appointment of the expert (Section 13): The track record of prior CNC cases will now serve as an element of evaluation in expert appointments.

- Credit facilities (Section 16): Any suspension or withdrawal of credit lines must clearly state its underlying reasons. Its prosecution will not automatically imply liability, and accessing the CNC won’t automatically lead to a worse credit ranking. Additionally, there is now an obligation to reactivate suspended credit lines after the request for protective measures, provided they are upheld against the banks concerned. However, banks can maintain the suspension under prudential supervision regulations. 

- Duration (Section 17): It is now easier to extend the expert's assignment beyond the initial 180 days, up to an additional 180 days. This requires only a request from the entrepreneur or negotiating parties (not necessarily all creditors), with the expert's consent.

- Protective and precautionary measures (Section 19): The decree setting the hearing must be published in the companies registrar. The court may order specific ways for serving notice, addressing practical challenges when there are hundreds of creditors.

- Court Authorizations (Section 22): To facilitate restructuring operations, authorized financing or business transfers may be finalized even after the closing of the CNC (where provided for in the order or in the expert's final report). Super-priority ranking of receivables applies regardless of the CNC’s outcome also in subsequent enforcement and insolvency proceedings.

- Tax Settlement (Section 23): A new provision allows for the settlement of tax debt, excluding EU-own resource taxes, in CNC proposals. However, cram down is not allowed here.

2. Simplified judicial composition

- Classes of creditors (Section 25-sexies): Secured claims that have been downgraded to unsecured status will also have to be classified.

3. Certified Restructuring Plans

- Minimum Content (Section 56): Particular attention is given to compliance with health and safety regulations, with the associated costs to be covered by the plan alongside the position of workers.

4. Applications for Crisis Regulation Tools and protective measures

- Effects of preliminary applications (Section 44): The Amendment allows effects of preliminary applications to be tailored to the chosen instrument, upon submitting a draft plan for crisis regulation. This helps in managing the delicate initial phase of recovery, aligning the impact with restructuring agreements or PRO processes.

- Protective Measures (Section 54): It is clarified (resolving a judicial disagreement on this point) that "atypical" protective measures may also have the same content as "typical" ones (and therefore may be granted even after the latter have been exhausted, beyond the maximum period of one year provided by Section 8). However, the filing of the proposal and plan is required: it is not possible to obtain "atypical" measures in the so-called pre-filing phase, where only precautionary measures are available, as the Amendment explicitly confirms.

5. Debt Restructuring Agreements

- Transformation, Merger, and Demerger (Section 57): Extraordinary transactions under the plan must comply with provisions in Section 116. 

- Tax Settlement (Section 63): tax authorities have 90 days to accept the agreement, with possible extensions for amendments (60 days) or new proposals (90 days). Court’s filing is allowed only after the agreements have been executed or expiration of these deadlines.

- Cram Down for Taxes (Section 63): If tax authorities do not accept, approval may still be granted if their approval is critical and the following conditions are met:

 1. the agreement does not provide for the business’ winding up.

 2. Claims from other creditors account for at least 25% of the total.

 3. Public creditor satisfaction is at least 50%, excluding charges and default interests. If the non-public adhering creditors are fewer than 25%, the threshold rises to 60%.

- Cram down is not available if:

- The debtor was part of a terminated tax settlement within the past five years (except in renegotiation cases).

• The following conditions are jointly met: (i) the debt owed to public creditors is 80% or more of the total debt, and (ii) the debt owed to public creditors derives (a) predominantly from failure to make payments during 5 even non-consecutive tax periods or (b) at least one-third from the assessment of violations carried out by fraudulent acts of various kinds.

6. Restructuring Plan Subject to Approval (PRO)

- Tax Settlement (Section 64-bis): Introduced in the PRO as well, but without cram down.

- Business Transfer (Section 64-bis): The court may authorize the transfer of businesses or branches (free from prior liabilities) before approval, provided it benefits creditor satisfaction and business continuity.

7. Judicial Composition with creditors

- Liquidation Value (Section 87): According to dominant case law, the Amendment confirms liquidation value as the net result after deducting liquidation expenses, with adjustments if a going concern sale is possible. This is a crucial issue in determining how to allocate the restructuring surplus. 

- Mandatory Classes (Section 85): The maximum threshold for small companies to be included in relevant ad hoc class has been raised, based on assets, turnover, and employee count.

- Public Guarantees (Section 87): Risk provisions for public guarantees must be specifically addressed in the plan.

- Cram Down in plans providing for business prosecution (Section 88): the Amendment confirms that a judicial composition can be approved even if tax authorities vote against it. Additionally, the relevant classes are considered for the purpose of forming a majority in cross-class cram down provisions, but will not account for reaching the approval of the so-called "disadvantaged" or “mistreated” class.

- Competing Proposals (Section 90): The threshold for submitting a competing proposal has been reduced from 10% to 5% of the credits, with the clear intention of encouraging the use of this tool.

- Pending Contracts (Section 94-bis): The Amendment clarifies that the protections under the composition providing for business continuity apply from the moment the request is submitted (rather than when protective and precautionary measures are granted).

- Cross class cram down in compositions providing for business continuity (Sections 111-112): A deadline of seven days from the end of voting is set for requesting or granting approval in the absence of class unanimity. It is confirmed that an arrangement can be approved even if only a single class (the "disadvantaged" or "mistreated" class) agrees, provided that it is partially satisfied and would have received a better outcome if restructuring surplus value had been distributed according to the absolute priority of claims.

- Asset liquidation in composition providing for business continuity (Section 114-bis): The Amendment provides for explicit rules for asset liquidation within a continuity plan. Upon final sanction, the court may appoint one or more liquidators and a creditors' committee specifically for liquidation. The sales process must follow principles of efficiency, speed, transparency, and public disclosure. The effects will be those of forced sales, and the court will order the cancellation of encumbrances once the sale proceeds are collected.

- Extraordinary transactions (Section 116): The composition plan, including any extraordinary transactions, must be published in the companies registrar along with related drafts. Challenges must be raised during the final sanction process.

- Substantial changes to the plan or proposal (Section 118-bis): The debtor can request the renewal of the expert’s report and inform the judicial commissioner, who reports to the Court. This is followed by publication in the companies registrar and communication to creditors, who have 30 days to file any challenge. This is similar to what provided for debt restructuring agreements.

- Approval of composition involving shareholders (Section 120-quater): The Amendment outlines criteria for determining the actual value reserved for shareholders, using accounting standards applicable to figures provided within the plan. However, uncertainties remain regarding the conditions to be met (such as shareholder contributions and criteria for distributing restructuring value) in case of class dissent.

8. Bankruptcy Liquidation

- Exemption from claw back action (Section 166): The exemption from claw back for acts, payments, and guarantees as part of the plan is extended to simplified compositions for asset liquidation. The lookback period in cases involving consecutive procedures now begins from the publication of the application for access to a crisis regulation tool, including pre-filings.

- Preliminary Contracts (Section 173): The Amendment includes:

 - The right of a mortgage secured creditor to challenge the verdict declaring the passive estate enforceability if believing the sale price in the preliminary agreement is at least 25% disproportionate. If upheld, the contract is dissolved, and the property is liquidated by the receiver unless the buyer offers to pay the difference.

 - The enforceability against creditors of all payments made by traceable means to the debtor before the proceedings began (no longer just half of the amount), if the receiver takes over the preliminary contract.

 - Empowerment of the delegated judge, once the sale is complete and the price is collected, to cancel mortgages and other liens.

- Employees (Section 189): The rules governing termination and takeover by the receiver are simplified. In cases of termination, no repayment of welfare or social security benefits received during the suspension period is required from the worker. The deadline for filing an application for welfare provisions for termination starts from the worker's resignation or receipt of termination by the receiver.

- Challenge to verdict declaring passive estate enforceability (Section 207): The Amendment provides for:

 - deadlines to file additional defensive briefs could be granted.

 - in case a settlement agreement is reached during the litigation, the court orders to amend the passive estate accordingly.

- Asset liquidation (Section 213): Asset liquidation must be completed within five years from its start, unless an extension is granted due to complexity or difficulty in asset sales.

- Actions for liabilities (Section 215): The power to assign claims to third parties is explicitly provided, along with claw back actions.

- Real estate sales (Section 216): At least one sales attempt must be conducted in the first year and two in subsequent years.

- End of proceedings (Section 234): The option to close proceedings, already available in pending judgments and enforcement cases, is now extended to include distributions expected from other procedures.

- Composition in Bankruptcy Liquidation: The Amendment introduces several important updates:

- Group composition (Section 240): This can be proposed in cases of unified bankruptcy liquidation, with a single application permitted, subject to the autonomy of the assets involved.

- Multiple proposals (Section 241): In case of multiple proposals, all must be submitted to the creditors for approval, unless more favorable proposals are identified through a joint evaluation by the receiver and creditors' committee.

- Approval (Section 244): In cases of multiple proposals, the one approved by the majority of claims is considered approved, with the chronological order serving as the tie-breaker if necessary.

- Sanction (Section 245): When assessing the convenience of the arrangement, the court’s cram down decision must ensure the claim is treated no worse than in a judicial liquidation scenario, even if tax or contribution authorities vote against it.

- Provisional enforceability of the sanction verdict (Section 246): Enforceability begins upon the publication of the verdict, no longer dependent on final judgment. Pending challenges to the passive estate are stayed and may be resumed later. The Court of Appeals may suspend enforceability if serious grounds are found.

- Reform or cassation of the sanction order (Section 249): In the event of reform or cassation of the sanction order, all acts lawfully performed in execution and related orders are unaffected.

***

The contents of this article are for informational purposes only and do not constitute professional advice. 

For more information contact Fabio Marelli

• the new tool of negotiated composition (Articles 12-25-quinquies), which is meant to lead the debtor, with the assistance of an expert appointed by the Chamber of Commerce, to enter into one of the restructuring frameworks provided for by the Code, or to special forms of agreements, as well as to the simplified concordato for the liquidation of assets (Articles 25-quinquies - 25-septies); reporting duties by qualified public creditors for the early detection of the crisis are also provided (Articles 25-octies - 25-undecies);
• the already known frameworks and procedures, now defined as “distress and insolvency regulation procedures”: (i) certified restructuring plans (Art. 56), (ii) debt restructuring agreements (Articles 57-64), (iii) judicial composition with creditors (concordato preventivo) (Articles 84-120-quinquies), (iv) judicial liquidation (liquidazione giudiziale) (Articles 121-267) which replaces bankruptcy liquidation (fallimento), (v) compulsory administrative liquidation (Articles 293-316), and (vi) the new restructuring plan subject to approval or PRO (Articles 64-bis-64-quater), which is a new addition.

The procedures dedicated to consumers and small businesses (which are not subject to the regular insolvency procedures), currently governed by Law No. 3/2012, are now included in the Code as “restructuring of consumer debts” (Articles 67-73) and “minor composition with creditors” (Articles 74-83), as well as “controlled liquidation of the over-indebted” (liquidazione controllata del sovraindebitato) (Articles 268-277). (a) From bankruptcy to judicial liquidationThe deletion of the terms 'bankruptcy' and 'bankrupt' in the Code implements one of the principles of the Mandate Law and it is mainly a mere re-wording, since “judicial liquidation” retains the familiar features of bankruptcy proceedings (see more in detail in section k). (b) Protective measures (Articles 8, 18, 54 and 55)The CCII provides new rules regarding protective measures pending a distress and insolvency regulation procedure.The automatic stay of individual creditors’ enforcement and interim actions as a result of the filing for the concordato preventivo or to debt restructuring agreements, occurs only if the debtor requests so, but the duration must be established by the Court on a case-by-case basis (Art. 54, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 83/2022).The total duration of the protective measures granted in the various situations, including renewals and extensions, must not in any case exceed twelve months (Art. 8).Finally, protective measures (Art. 18) are also available pending the negotiated composition procedure, which is not included among the “distress and insolvency regulation procedures”. (c) Negotiated composition and simplified concordato (Articles 12-25-undecies) The negotiated composition was introduced by Law Decree No. 118/2021 and entered into force on 15 November 2021. Legislative Decree No. 83/2022 transferred the rules regarding the negotiated composition into Title II of the Code, replacing the assisted distress composition and the OCRI (company distress composition body).The assisted composition can be used by all entrepreneurs (commercial, farmers or minor), provided that they are duly registered in the companies’ register. The procedure starts with the request to have an independent expert appointed, through the telematic platform referred to in Art. 13, which must be filed with documentation (balance sheets and debt situation), including a 'draft recovery plan’, which, however, does not correspond to an actual plan. Art. 25-quinquies restricts access to the composition if an application to access to one of the distress and insolvency regulation procedures or to judicial liquidation is pending.The debtor may request protective or precautionary interim measures that involve the prohibition for the creditors to refuse to perform contracts or to terminate or modify them (to the debtor’s detriment), if based exclusively on the non-payment of debts prior to the application for the appointment of the independent expert. Limited bonus measures of a mainly tax-related nature are also provided for.Articles 25-sexies and 25-septies regulate the simplified concordato agreement, which can be accessed only upon the outcome of the negotiated composition (the application must be submitted within 60 days from the expert's final report), under the twofold condition that (i) negotiations were carried out fairly and in good faith and (ii) negotiated solutions - identified in Article 23(1) and (2)(b) - were not feasible. This is a liquidation-only arrangement, as it must follow the asset sale scheme, which, however, as is well known, is compatible with the sale of the business as a going concern. An important feature is that the proposal is not subject to the approval of creditors (who can only file objections) and is instead approved directly by the Court. (d) Venue (Art. 27)The Mandate Law recommended to ensure that bankruptcy procedures dealt with by more specialized judges, inter alia, by consolidating only in the major Courts the venue to deal with insolvency procedures.The CCII has only very conservatively implemented this recommendation, namely with respect to the concentration of venue for extraordinary administration procedures and groups of companies of significant size. (e) Single proceeding to enter judicial restructuring and liquidation procedures (Articles 40-53)The CCII provides a single proceeding to deal with all requests to start any of the different judicial restructuring or liquidation procedures with respect to the same business entity or consumer. Art. 7 expressly states that, where in the best interest of the creditors, the restructuring proceedings must be always preferred to judicial liquidation.The Code clarifies the meaning of 'crisis’ (distress) relevant for the access to a crisis restructuring framework (Art. 2), supplementing it with the principle of 'inadequacy of prospective cash flows to meet obligations in the next twelve months'.It is worth noting the extension of the power to file the request for opening the judicial liquidation to the corporate supervisory bodies and the possibility for the Public Prosecutor, in addition to proposing a request for the opening of judicial liquidation, to intervene in all proceedings aimed at the initiation of a procedure for the regulation of the crisis and insolvency. On the other hand, the initiative to file for crisis and insolvency regulation tools remains reserved to the debtor.A significant innovation concerns the immediate enforceability of the judgment revoking the judicial liquidation, which is no longer conditional to the decision being final and not subject to further appeal: Art. 53 lays down rules aiming to reconcile the inherently conflicting interests at stake. (f) Certified restructuring plans (Art. 56)Compared to former rules, it is provided that (i) the content of the plan underlying the agreements is broader and (ii) milestones to check the actual implementation of the plan and the actions to be taken, in case these are not implemented, have to be indicated. (g) Debt restructuring agreements (Articles 57-64)Pursuant to Article 61, the possibility of extending the effects of the agreement to creditors who did not accept it is no longer limited to financial creditors, but only if the continuity of business is guaranteed (extended effectiveness agreements or accordi ad efficacia estesa).Express rules are introduced on the renewal of the expert’s report, in the event of substantial changes to the plan or agreements, even after the Court’s approval, with the option for creditors to oppose the new report (Article 58). (h) Restructuring plan subject to approval ("PRO") (Articles 64-bis - 64-quater)The Directive mandates the Member States to introduce a preventive restructuring framework that our legal system did not contemplate, which therefore has been introduced in the Code under articles 64-bis and 64-quater by Legislative Decree No. 83/2022. The debtor will be able to make a proposal to the creditors (necessarily divided into classes) which must be approved unanimously by the classes, but which will allow to distribute the proceeds disregarding the par condicio creditorum and the absolute priority rule. The plan can provide (i) that the debtor continues to trade, (ii) the liquidation of assets or (iii) the satisfaction of the creditors “by any other means”, in any case to an extent not lower than the alternative of the judicial liquidation.With respect to the concordato preventivo, there is no limitation to the ordinary course of business, but there is a mechanism for prior notice to the court-appointed commissioner, similar to the negotiated composition.The provisions of PRO replicate those of the concordato preventivo regarding (i) the submission of the application and related documentation, (ii) the voting of classes of creditors, and refers back to concordato preventivo with regard to (iii) competing bids and proposals, (iv) pending contracts, (v) authorization of super-senior loans, (vi) revocation for fraud, and (vii) effects, performance, breach and voidance of the proposal.In the event that unanimity is not reached (and even outside of this scenario, at any time), the debtor may amend the application by submitting a proposal for a concordato preventivo, subject to granting of terms pursuant to Art. 47 for filing of the proposal and plan.It is therefore a sort of “accelerated” concordato preventivo with greater flexibility in terms of company management while the procedure is pending. (i) Concordato preventivo procedure (Articles 84-120)The Code, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 83/2022, contains the following innovations:

• the admissibility of concordato plans that achieve the satisfaction of creditors "in any other form" is confirmed (Art. 84): the only requirement is that the plan achieves the satisfaction of creditors "to an extent not less than the alternative of the judicial liquidation";
• with regard to concordato with business continuity, the so-called "indirect" form (i.e. through the sale to third parties of the business) is also expressly allowed, and the requirements of job retention (needed in the original version of the Code) are eliminated, while it is stated that concordato with business continuity "preserves, to the extent possible, jobs" (Art. 84);
• at the time of the admission to the procedure, the Court’s review on the feasibility of the plan is introduced, and it takes different forms in the various forms of concordato: in the liquidation concordato, the Court would review if the “objectives” of the plan are “clearly unfit”, while in the concordato with business continuity the Court would consider if “the satisfaction of creditors and the preservation of the corporate value” are “clearly unfit”: (Art. 47).

In the concordato with business continuity, the amounts exceeding the liquidation value (except for workers' claims) can be distributed disregarding the absolute priority rule, provided that each class of creditors receives at least as much as the classes of the same grade and more than the classes of lower grade (a “relative priority” rule is therefore provided) (Art. 84[1]).Moreover, in the concordato with business continuity (direct or indirect) it is sufficient that the creditors are satisfied "also to a lesser extent" by the proceeds of the going concern and even a concordato which is mainly characterized as a liquidation plan may still be considered as concordato with business continuity, provided that at least a small portion of the revenues comes from the going concern of the company (Art. 84).In the liquidation concordato (concordato liquidatorio) it is clarified that (i) the additional external resources must increase the available assets by 10% (previously the increase was referred to the percentage of creditors' satisfaction, which generated various uncertainties) and (ii) it is also specified that the additional resources can be distributed without respecting the absolute priority rule (Art. 84).Finally, the Code (Art. 115) provides that, in the concordato providing for a full liquidation of assets, the judicial liquidator can always bring actions against directors and statutory auditors to recover damages arising from breach of their duties. (j) The preventive restructuring frameworks of companies (Articles 120-bis-120-quinquies)Pursuant to recent updates introduced by Legislative Decree No. 83/2022, the plan may provide for amendments of the articles of association, including capital increases and reductions with the exclusion of option rights, mergers, demergers and change of corporate form, even without the consent of the shareholders; in this case, the shareholders must be included in a specific class for the purposes of the proposal and they vote in an amount equal to the share of capital held (with abstention counting as approval the proposal); the confirmation order determines the amendments to the articles of association provided for in the plan.Competing proposals may also be submitted by minority shareholders, holding at least 10% of the share capital. Shareholders can oppose the approval of such a proposal if they claim that it causes a prejudice compared "to the alternative of liquidation”.When previous shareholders retain part of the "value resulting from the restructuring" and there is disagreement by one or more classes of creditors, the proposal can only be confirmed if it is found that, even if the entire value reserved for shareholders would be distributed to creditors, the relative priority rule is complied with.The decision to access a preventive restructuring framework remains "on an exclusive basis" with the directors, who cannot be revoked starting from the day the resolution is entered in the companies’ register. (k) From bankruptcy to judicial liquidation (Articles 121-267)As already mentioned, the bankruptcy procedure changes its name to ‘judicial liquidation’, but the rules are mainly unchanged. The impact of the innovations is rather limited, indeed. To point out some among the most relevant: (i) the rule prohibiting set-off of debts and receivables with a debtor subject to judicial liquidation, in case receivables towards the latter were purchased in the year preceding or after the opening of the liquidation, has been widened to exclude any possible exemption (Art. 155); (ii) the look-back period for claw-back actions has been anticipated to the submission of the application to open the judicial liquidation (Articles 163-166); (iii) a specific regulation has been provided for pending employment contracts, which remain on hold until the receiver chooses to withdraw or take over the contracts, within four months from the start of the liquidation, unless the business can be sold as a going concern (Art. 189) with the provision of special social security safeguards for employees (Art. 190); (iv) holders of security interests on assets, which the debtor subject to judicial liquidation had given as security for a third-party debt, are now required to file a proof of debt to enforce their security (Art. 201); (v) the final deadline to file a proof of debt has been shortened to six months after the decision on the first lot of proofs of debt (Art. 208); (vi) look-back periods for the avoiding powers of the receiver set forth by Articles 163, 164, 166(1) and 169 start from the date of publication of the original application for access to an insolvency proceeding, (vii) the previous authorization to continue the business after the opening of judicial liquidation has been deleted (being the business continuity, in fact, is no longer the exception but the rule). (l) Insolvency and groups of companies (Articles 284-292)The Code introduces a set of rules (so far missing in our system) for the management of the insolvency of groups of companies.This will allow to establish a single procedure for different companies of the group, on the basis of a single restructuring plan, while maintaining the principle of separation of assets and liabilities.The definition of a group of companies is found under Art. 2(h), and it does not include the state and local governments. (m) Over-indebtedness procedures (Articles 65-83, 268-277)The rules governing the insolvency procedures of smaller businesses, farmers and consumers (so-called over-indebtedness procedures), introduced by Law No. 3/2012, are now part of the Code.Also in this case, as for bankruptcy, changes in the name of the procedures (mentioned above under a) leave the substance mostly unchanged. The main innovations concern (i) an easing of certain requirements for admission to the procedures, (ii) the streamlining of some procedural steps, (iii) specific rules for the joint treatment of the insolvency of over-indebted families, (iv) the possibility for the debtor entitled to the benefit to obtain a discharge, following the controlled liquidation procedure, even in case creditors did not receive any payment (Art. 278); and (v) the possibility, for the consumer, to opt for a differentiated satisfaction of the creditors. (n) Compulsory administrative liquidation (Articles 293-316)Compulsory administrative liquidation (liquidazione coatta amministrativa) remains the exclusive insolvency procedure for banking, financial intermediation, fiduciary and insurance companies. With respect to other companies subject to supervision by regulatory bodies, it will only be applicable if the liquidation is driven by situations of irregularity and not by insolvency. Co-operatives (except those carrying out banking activities, etc.) and mutual assistance bodies are therefore exclusively subject to judicial liquidation (and are no longer subject to compulsory administrative liquidation). (o) Insolvency procedures and criminal interim measures (Articles 317-321)The CCII provides a new set of rules dealing with the relationship between insolvency procedures and criminal interim measures, such as seizures. In a nutshell, the Code provides that criminal seizures aimed at confiscation prevail over judicial liquidation, while judicial liquidation prevails over the so-called “safeguard seizures” (sequestri impeditivi) which have a precautionary function aimed at preventing further consequences of crimes. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. For more information please contact Fabio Marelli, at fabio.marelli@advant-nctm.com News([1]) This is a very significant innovation, which stands in clear contrast to the Supreme Court case law (which is firmly against the free use of cash flows stemming from the business continuing to trade), but which finds a balance in the new rules on the approval of concordato preventivo in which the shareholders preserve a portion of the "value resulting from the restructuring" (see Article 120-quater).

a) together with the application for the appointment of the expert, the debtor must include, in addition to the report on his business and the financial plan for the next six months, also a "draft recovery plan";

b) the deadline before which it is not allowed to submit again the application is reduced from one year to four months if the motion for dismissal is submitted by the same debtor;

c) the expert will be asked by the Court to express his/her opinion on the protective interim measures required by the debtor, if functional to the successful outcome of the negotiations;

d) the expert may invite the parties to renegotiate in good faith the contracts when performance has become too burdensome due to any circumstances (and not limited to the effects of the pandemic), but conversely it will no longer be possible to ask the Court to issue an order to the same effect, in case there is no agreement;

e) the debtor employing more than 15 employees must inform the union representatives in advance.

a) requirements for jobs retention are completely cancelled (so-called "employment condition" and "employment clause") from the concordato with business continuity, while it is now just stated that this "preserves, to the extent possible, workplaces" (art. 84);

b) the plan is no longer limited to liquidation or business continuity, thus confirming that satisfaction of creditors can be proposed "in any other way" (art. 84);

c) in the concordato with business continuity (direct or indirect) it is sufficient that the creditors are satisfied "also to a lesser extent" by the proceeds of the going concern; a mostly liquidation plan may then still be considered as concordato with business continuity, provided that even a small portion of the revenues come from the going concern of the company (art. 84);

d) in the concordato with business continuity, the amounts exceeding the liquidation value (except for workers' claims) can be distributed disregarding the absolute priority rule, provided that each class of creditors receives at least as much as the classes of the same grade and more than the classes of lower grade (it is therefore implemented a relative priority rule) (art. 84); this is a very significant innovation, which stands in clear contrast to the Supreme Court case law (which is firmly against the free use of cash flows stemming from the business continuing to trade), but which finds a balance in the new rules on the approval of concordato preventivo in which the shareholders preserve a portion of the "value resulting from the restructuring" (see art. 120-quater in the next paragraph);

e) in the concordato with business continuity, creditors must always be divided into classes, including that of smaller companies for the supply of goods and services (art. 85);

f) in the liquidation concordato it is clarified that the additional external resources must increase the available assets by 10% (previously the increase was referred to the percentage of creditors' satisfaction, which generated various uncertainties); as noted above, this provision will have a very limited scope of application, i.e. when the concordato plan provides for a full piecemeal liquidation; it is also specified that the additional resources can be distributed without respecting the absolute priority rule (art. 84);

g) whatever the kind of concordato, it must satisfy the creditors "to an extent no lower than that achievable in the event of judicial liquidation"; thus, the requirement of the "convenience" of the composition is introduced, which however would seem to be subject to review by the Court only in the event of an opposition to confirmation (art. 84);

h) at the time of opening of the procedure, the Court's review on the feasibility of the plan is differentiated, namely it is limited to the following being "clearly unfit": in the liquidation concordato, the Court would review the "objectives set", while in the concordato with business continuity the Court would consider " the satisfaction of creditors and the preservation the of corporate value" (art. 47);

i) in the concordato with business continuity, a provision similar to that in force in the negotiated composition is introduced with regard to pending contracts in the event of interim protective measures, i.e. creditors cannot refuse performance, terminate or modify "essential" contracts, being those necessary for business continuity (art. 94-bis);

j) in the voting phase, only for the concordato with business continuity, it is provided that (a) all classes must approve the proposal, but at the same time an alternative majority is introduced for approval within each class (as already seen in the PRO) equal to two thirds of the voting creditors; (b) secured creditors do not vote if fully satisfied in cash within 180 days (30 days for workers) from approval (art. 109);

k) in the confirmation phase, only for the concordato with business continuity, the Court must verify that the plan "is not without reasonable prospects of preventing or overcoming the insolvency" (which provides sort of a presumption of feasibility) and also that any necessary new loans "do not unjustly prejudice the interests of creditors";

l) in the confirmation phase, only for the concordato with business continuity, the Court can confirm the proposal even if not approved by all the classes if (a) the distribution rules for the liquidation value and the value in excess are complied with, and (b) what are defined as "transversal restructuring conditions" are met, including the correct distribution of the liquidation value and the excess value, as well as the approval by the majority of the classes, provided that at least one consisting of secured creditors or creditors who - if the absolute priority rule would have been applied - would have received at least part of the value exceeding the liquidation value (art. 112);

m) in the confirmation phase, the Court's review of the convenience of the proposal, in the event of opposition, (a) in the concordato with business continuity may be solicited by each dissenting creditor who has already raised this issue when making his remarks to the commissioner's report according to art. 107, while (b) in the liquidation concordato only by dissenting creditors belonging to a dissenting class or representing at least 20% of the credits admitted to vote (which is in line with pre-Insolvency Code provisions); in the event of opposition in the concordato with business continuity, the Court is then expected to order an appraisal of the business only if the convenience of the proposal is challenged or failure to comply with the "transversal restructuring conditions" is alleged (art. 112).

a) the plan may provide for amendments of the articles of association, including capital increases and reductions with the exclusion of option rights, mergers, demergers and change of corporate form, even without the consent of the shareholders; in this case, the shareholders must be included in a specific class for the purposes of the proposal and they vote in an amount equal to the share of capital held (if they do not vote, they are considered as approving the proposal); the confirmation order determines the amendments to the articles of association provided for in the plan;

b) the decision to access a preventive restructuring framework remains "on an exclusive basis" with the directors, who cannot be revoked from the day the resolution is entered in the companies’ register;

c) competing proposals may also be submitted by minority shareholders, holding at least 10% of the share capital;

d) the shareholders can oppose to confirmation if they claim a prejudice "with respect to the liquidation alternative";

e) when previous shareholders retain part of the "value resulting from the restructuring" and there is disagreement by one or more classes of creditors, the proposal can only be confirmed if it is found that, even if the entire value reserved for shareholders would be distributed to creditors, the relative priority rule, i.e. that the dissenting class receives at least as much as the classes of the same grade and more than the classes of a lower grade (if the dissenting class is placed immediately before the members, it must receive a higher value than that reserved for the members) is complied with;

f) changes in the shareholding structure cannot lead to the termination or modification of contracts stipulated by the company.

• verificare (come appena detto) la sussistenza di concrete prospettive di risanamento;
• agevolare le trattative tra il debitore, i creditori e le altre parti interessate; in questo senso la sua partecipazione ha un ruolo di garanzia e di stimolo nei confronti dei creditori;
• partecipare alle consultazioni sindacali (se sono impiegati più di 15 dipendenti);
• valutare se atti di straordinaria amministrazione o pagamenti possano essere pregiudizievoli per i creditori;
• invitare ala rinegoziazione dei contratti divenuti onerosi a causa degli effetti della pandemia e rendere il relativo parere al Tribunale;
• consentire la prosecuzione delle trattative al termine del periodo previsto di sei mesi;
• redigere la relazione finale che può costituire condizione di determinati benefici per il debitore, tra cui in particolare l’accesso al concordato semplificato;
• in caso di esito positivo delle trattative, sottoscrivere insieme alle parti un contratto che produce gli effetti di un piano attestato di risanamento ai sensi dell’art. 67, co. 3, lett. d) l.fall.

 I doveri delle parti. Rilievo centrale hanno le innovative previsioni (art. 4) che stabiliscono doveri di collaborazione nella conduzione delle trattative per tutte le parti coinvolte, ben più specifici di quanto sarebbe desumibile dai principi vigenti e di quanto è dato riscontrare nelle prassi correnti. Si tratta dei seguenti doveri:

• per tutte le parti:
  • doveri di buona fede, lealtà, proattività, tempestività e collaborazione nelle trattative, dando riscontri tempestivi e motivati (co. 4 e 7);
  • obbligo di riservatezza sulla situazione dell’impresa, sulle iniziative assunte o programmate e su tutte le informazioni ricevute;
• per le banche (inclusi i relativi cessionari e mandatari) (co. 6):
  • dovere di partecipazione;
  • partecipazione attiva ed informata;
  • divieto revoca di affidamenti per il solo fatto dell’accesso alla procedura;
• per l’imprenditore (co. 5):
  • dovere di fornire informazioni complete e trasparenti
  • dovere di gestione dell’impresa senza pregiudizio ingiustificato alle ragioni dei creditori.

 Le misure protettive e cautelari. L’intervento del Tribunale è previsto solo nel caso in cui il debitore richieda misure protettive o cautelari con la stessa istanza di nomina dell’esperto o nel corso delle trattative (art. 6). L’istanza viene pubblicata nel registro delle imprese e fa quindi venir meno il carattere di riservatezza della composizione.Dal giorno della pubblicazione:

• i creditori non possono iniziare o proseguire azioni esecutive o cautelari (c.d. automatic stay) né acquisire diritti di prelazione;
• i creditori non possono rifiutare l’adempimento dei contratti o di risolverli o modificarli in danno dell’imprenditore, per il solo fatto del mancato pagamento di crediti anteriori alla pubblicazione dell’istanza di nomina dell’esperto;
• come già accennato, fino alla conclusione delle trattative o all’archiviazione dell’istanza non può essere pronunciata la sentenza di fallimento.

All’udienza (art. 7) il Tribunale (oltre a stabilirne la durata tra 30 e 120 giorni) può confermare o modificare il divieto di azioni individuali e può emettere i provvedimenti cautelari «necessari per condurre a termine le trattative». Da segnalare che le misure possono essere modulate secondo le esigenze del caso, non solo per quanto riguarda il contenuto e la durata, ma anche limitandole a determinate iniziative, creditori o categorie di creditori.È importante rilevare poi che (a differenza di quanto avviene nel c.d. «pre-concordato») la norma dispone espressamente che «non sono inibiti i pagamenti»: si tratta di una regola che si spiega sia con il fatto che la composizione negoziata non è una procedura concorsuale e quindi non determina l’apertura del concorso dei creditori, sia in forza di opportunità di maggiore elasticità e proficuità della gestione. L’esenzione dalle azioni revocatorie. L’art. 12 prevede che non sono soggetti all'azione revocatoria (esclusi però gli atti c.d. «anormali» di cui all'art. 67, co. 1) i pagamenti e le garanzie posti in essere dall'imprenditore dopo l’accettazione dell'incarico da parte dell'esperto, alla condizione però che siano «coerenti con l'andamento e lo stato delle trattative e con le prospettive di risanamento esistenti al momento in cui sono stati compiuti». È questa una circostanza che si presta a valutazioni e che quindi non sembra poter contribuire alla certezza dei rapporti tra il debitore ed i creditori: probabilmente si tratta di un compromesso inevitabile, in assenza di una supervisione e vigilanza da parte del Tribunale e del commissario giudiziale. La gestione dell’impresa, i nuovi finanziamenti e la rinegoziazione dei contratti. Per le ragioni appena indicate, la gestione dell’impresa in pendenza della composizione negoziata resta affidata, sia per l’ordinaria che per la straordinaria amministrazione, al debitore (art. 9). A questo proposito, la norma detta però alcuni criteri a cui la gestione deve essere ispirata, ribadendo anche (a scanso di qualsiasi equivoco) che restano ferme le responsabilità dell’imprenditore al riguardo:

• se l’impresa versa in stato di crisi, occorre «evitare pregiudizio alla sostenibilità economico-finanziaria dell’attività»;
• se invece è già in atto l’insolvenza, ma vi sono concrete prospettive di risanamento, il debitore deve gestire l’impresa «nel prevalente interesse dei creditori».

Tuttavia, per quanto riguarda gli atti di straordinaria amministrazione e pagamenti «non coerenti» con le trattative e le prospettive di risanamento, è stabilito un dovere di preventiva informazione da parte del debitore all’esperto. Quest’ultimo, se ritiene che l’atto «può arrecare pregiudizio ai creditori, alle trattative o alle prospettive di risanamento», lo segnala per iscritto al debitore ed all’organo di controllo: se gli atti sono compiuti nonostante il dissenso, l’esperto informa l’organo di controllo e il giudice che ha disposto misure protettive, per la revoca delle stesse. Inoltre, l’esperto iscrive il proprio dissenso nel registro delle imprese, ciò che fa venir meno il beneficio dell’esonero da revocatoria per quanto riguarda gli atti così compiuti (art. 12 co. 3) oltre che a darne evidenza a tutte le parti ed ai creditori, con le conseguenze pratiche del caso (cioè che, verosimilmente, i creditori non saranno disponibili a proseguire le trattative).Diverse disposizioni all’art. 10 sono finalizzate a garantire la continuità aziendale in pendenza del tentativo di composizione negoziata, in aggiunta al divieto di sospendere le prestazioni o di risolvere i contratti, di cui si è già detto (art. 6):

• la possibile autorizzazione da parte del Tribunale di nuovi finanziamenti prededucibili;
• la possibile autorizzazione da parte del Tribunale della cessione dell’azienda o di rami della stessa;
• la possibilità dell’esperto di invitare le parti a rinegoziare il contenuto di contratti ad esecuzione continuata o periodica o differita, «se la prestazione è divenuta eccessivamente onerosa per effetto della pandemia»; da un lato quest’ultima condizione può apparire restrittiva, ma dall’altro si tratta comunque di una misura incisiva, posto che un’equa rideterminazione può essere disposta dal Tribunale, se non viene raggiunto un accordo tra le parti.

 La conclusione delle trattative. La durata delle trattative è prevista dall’art. 5 co. 7 in 180 giorni, al termine dei quali «l’incarico dell’esperto si considera concluso». Le trattative possono però proseguire, fino ad ulteriori 180 giorni, se tutte le parti lo richiedono e l’esperto vi acconsente.L’art. 11 prevede quindi i possibili esiti della procedura, alla conclusione del termine di cui sopra. Il debitore può alternativamente:

• concludere un contratto, con uno o più creditori, che consente di beneficiare delle misure premiali previste dall'art. 14 se, «secondo la relazione dell'esperto è idoneo ad assicurare la continuità aziendale per un periodo non inferiore a due anni»; si tratta di un nuovo istituto, che lascia qualche dubbio per quanto riguarda l’effettivo conseguimento del pieno risanamento, che non è richiesto espressamente, ma sembra da ritenere comunque necessario (specie nei casi in cui l’impresa versi in stato di crisi o insolvenza) nell’orizzonte temporale indicato;
• concludere una convenzione di moratoria ai sensi dell'articolo 182-octiesfall.; si tratta qui di una soluzione intermedia, che non rappresenta di per sé, naturalmente, una soluzione della crisi e sembra piuttosto consentire un’ulteriore estensione delle trattative, sebbene al di fuori del contesto (e senza quindi poter accedere agli esiti specifici) della composizione negoziata;
• concludere un accordo sottoscritto dall'imprenditore, dai creditori e dall'esperto che produce gli effetti del piano di risanamento di cui all'art. 67, co. 3, lett. d) l.fall., senza che però occorra l'attestazione (verosimilmente, in proposito dovrà comunque esprimersi l’esperto nella propria relazione finale, di cui infra);
• domandare l’omologazione di un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti, con la possibilità di estenderne gli effetti ai sensi dell’art. 182-septiesfall. in presenza di una percentuale di adesione ridotta dal 75% al 60%; è questo un ulteriore incentivo al debitore all’accesso alla procedura, potendo costituire un elemento a suo favore nel corso delle trattative;
• predisporre un piano di risanamento attestato ai sensi dell'art. 67, co. 3, lett. d) l.fall.;
• accedere ad una procedura concorsuale prevista dalla legge fallimentare o all’amministrazione straordinaria delle grandi imprese o ancora (per gli imprenditori «sotto soglia») ad una procedura di sovraindebitamento di cui alla l. n. 3/2012;
• presentare una proposta di «concordato semplificato» per cessione dei beni, secondo le disposizioni dell’art. 18; è questa una delle disposizioni più innovative e «in controtendenza» rispetto agli orientamenti restrittivi del concordato di carattere liquidatorio.

Le ipotesi previste riguardano quindi il caso sia di conclusione con successo delle trattative, che comportano una definizione negoziata della crisi, sia soluzioni transitorie (come la convenzione di moratoria), sia infine di esito negativo, che può indurre il debitore ad accedere ad uno degli strumenti di risanamento o procedure concorsuali vigenti.Tra questi ultimi vi sono esiti fondati su una definizione negoziata della crisi (piani attestati di risanamento e accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti) e quindi coerenti con il contesto della nuova procedura, ma ve ne sono anche altre di carattere giudiziale (concordato preventivo, fallimento, liquidazione coatta, amministrazione straordinaria) che prescindono in varia misura da forme di consenso dei creditori.Un tema può riguardare il concordato preventivo, se si considera che l’accesso alla composizione negoziata potrebbe costituire una sorta di «anticamera» ulteriore rispetto alla fase preconcordataria: da un lato ne risulterebbe una dilatazione della fase di definizione della proposta concordataria e, secondo alcune opinioni, la composizione negoziata non potrebbe essere avviata se fin dall’inizio il debitore ha l’obiettivo di accedere al concordato, in particolare al nuovo concordato semplificato; dall’altro lato si deve rilevare però che l’accesso al concordato è uno degli esiti espressamente previsti, senza limitazioni, dalla nuova legge, che prevede anche in tal caso la conservazione degli effetti degli atti autorizzati dal Tribunale (art. 12).L’esito negativo delle trattative, in ogni caso, a differenza della composizione assistita del Codice della Crisi, non prevede alcuna segnalazione al pubblico ministero, né tanto meno l’esperto è tenuto ad altri adempimenti se non alla redazione della propria relazione finale e – nel caso – alla trasmissione della stessa al giudice che abbia disposto misure protettive o cautelari, ma solo per la dichiarazione di cessazione dei relativi effetti. Resta però salva la facoltà del giudice di rilevare l’insolvenza (se in effetti sussistente) e trasmettere gli atti al pubblico ministero ai sensi dell’art. 7 l.fall. La relazione finale dell’esperto (art. 5 co. 8). La legge non detta analiticamente i contenuti della relazione, che si possono tuttavia desumere dal sistema della nuova disciplina:

• una cronistoria della negoziazione, delle iniziative adottate dall’imprenditore e delle risposte delle controparti;
• una illustrazione delle circostanze che hanno condotto alla mancata conclusione delle trattative
• una illustrazione della soluzione negoziale raggiunta, delle proposte e dei contenuti delle azioni previste per conseguire il risanamento;
• una dichiarazione dell’idoneità a garantire la continuità aziendale per due anni (nel caso di stipula del «contratto» dell’art. 11, lett. a);
• considerazioni in merito ai dati aziendali ed al riequilibrio della situazione patrimoniale economica e finanziaria (nel caso di stipula dell’«accordo» dell’art. 11, lett. c);
• una dichiarazione in merito allo svolgimento «secondo correttezza e buona fede» delle trattative e della non praticabilità di soluzioni negoziate, al fine del possibile accesso al concordato semplificato (l’art. 18 co. 3 menziona anche a questo riguardo anche un separato «parere» dell’esperto al Tribunale in merito ai «presumibili risultati della liquidazione»).

Per quanto riguarda gli effetti collegati alla relazione finale, vanno richiamati, in caso di esito positivo delle trattative:

• se il «contratto» o l’«accordo» di cui all’art. 11, lett. a) e c) sono pubblicati nel registro delle imprese, l’Agenzia delle Entrate concede un piano di rateazione di imposte e ritenute con i relativi accessori fino a 6 anni (72 mensilità) (art. 14 co. 4);
• in caso di conclusione di accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti risultante dalla relazione, la percentuale di cui all’art. 182-septiesfall. è ridotta al 60%.

In caso invece di esito negativo, oltre alla dichiarazione in merito alla sussistenza delle condizioni per l’accesso al concordato semplificato, va richiamata la cessazione degli effetti delle misure protettive e cautelari, che spetta al giudice che le ha disposte sulla scorta della relazione. Le misure premiali. Un rilevante incentivo all’accesso alla composizione negoziata è rappresentato dalle misure premiali di carattere esclusivamente tributario (art. 14), segnalando che (a differenza delle analoghe misure previste dal Codice della Crisi) non sono condizionate ad un tempestivo accesso alla procedura. Si tratta dei seguenti benefici:

• gli interessi che maturano su debiti tributari sono ridotti alla misura legale, dall’accettazione dell’esperto;
• le sanzioni in caso di «avviso bonario» sono ridotte alla misura minima se il termine di pagamento scade dopo l’istanza di nomina dell’esperto;
• questi due primi benefici sono soggetti a decadenza in caso di successiva dichiarazione di fallimento o dichiarazione di insolvenza;
• interessi e sanzioni su debiti tributari sorti prima dell’istanza sono ridotti alla metà in caso di accesso, all’esito delle trattative, ad una procedura concorsuale (compreso il nuovo concordato semplificato e le procedure liquidatorie) o ad un piano di risanamento attestato o ad un accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti ex 182-bis l.fall.;
• i debiti tributari beneficiano della rateazione fino a 6 anni di cui si è già detto (è prevista la decadenza automatica in caso di accesso ad una procedura concorsuale o di mancato pagamento di una sola rata).

Resta ferma la disponibilità della transazione fiscale ex art. 182-ter l.fall. solo nell’ambito degli accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti e del concordato preventivo, che pure costituiscono uno degli esiti possibili della composizione negoziata. La composizione negoziata di gruppo. Alcune disposizioni ricalcate su quelle del Codice della Crisi in tema di procedure concorsuali di gruppo sono dettate dalla nuova legge. L’appartenenza al gruppo è individuata in relazione all’esercizio di attività di direzione e coordinamento. Possono partecipare anche le imprese che non si trovano in stato di squilibrio.È prevista la presentazione di un’unica richiesta di nomina dell’esperto per tutte le imprese del gruppo, rivolta alla Camera di Commercio ove si trova la sede dell’impresa che esercita la direzione e coordinamento secondo quanto risulta dal registro delle imprese.I finanziamenti infragruppo sono consentiti dopo l’avvio della composizione negoziata e non sono soggetti alla postergazione legale se l’esperto è stato informato e non ha iscritto il proprio dissenso.Al termine della composizione, può essere stipulato un unico «contratto» o «accordo» di cui all’art. 11, lett. a) e c) od un’unica convenzione di moratoria per tutte le imprese del gruppo. Il concordato semplificato Di grande rilievo si prospetta il nuovo concordato semplificato, accessibile solo all’esito della composizione negoziata alla duplice condizione che (i) le trattative si siano svolte secondo correttezza e buona fede e (ii) le soluzioni negoziali – il «contratto» o l’«accordo» di cui all’art. 11, lett. a) e c), l’accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti ex art. 182-bis l.fall. – non siano risultate praticabili. Complessivamente, se ne potrebbe desumere, secondo un’opinione, che una soluzione negoziale sia stata genuinamente perseguita dall’imprenditore e che quindi lo stesso non abbia inteso in realtà perseguire sin dall’inizio il concordato semplificato.Quest’ultimo rappresenta una soluzione decisamente favorevole nella prospettiva del debitore, benché verosimilmente in secondo piano rispetto ad una definizione negoziale che gli consenta di conservare la titolarità dell’impresa.Di seguito i caratteri principali del nuovo concordato semplificato:

• è di tipo solo liquidatorio, dovendo seguire lo schema della cessione dei beni, che tuttavia come noto è compatibile con la c.d. «continuità aziendale indiretta» ed è quindi possibile la cessione dell’azienda, espressamente prevista dalle nuove norme;
• è accessibile solo all’esito negativo della composizione negoziata (la domanda deve essere presentata entro 60 giorni dalla relazione finale dell’esperto);
• non occorre attestazione di veridicità dei dati aziendali o di fattibilità del piano liquidatorio, che deve essere allegato alla domanda unitamente alla consueta documentazione prevista dall’art. 161 l.fall. (comprensiva dell’elenco dei creditori e dello stato analitico ed estimativo delle attività);
• non è prevista la figura del commissario giudiziale (il Tribunale nomina però un ausiliario al quale potranno essere affidati compiti da definire ad hoc);
• il Tribunale valuta unicamente la ritualità della domanda e fissa direttamente l’udienza di omologazione, ordinando la trasmissione ai creditori della proposta insieme alla relazione dell’esperto e ad un parere dello stesso in merito ai «presumibili risultati della liquidazione»;
• la proposta di concordato non è soggetta all’approvazione dei creditori, che possono solo opporsi all’omologazione contestando la fattibilità del piano di liquidazione o lamentando «pregiudizio rispetto all’alternativa della liquidazione fallimentare»;
• i creditori possono essere suddivisi in classi; non è prevista espressamente la possibilità di pagamento parziale dei creditori privilegiati, né una percentuale minima di soddisfacimento dei chirografari (la soglia minima si desume dal raffronto con l’alternativa fallimentare e dal fatto che la proposta «assicura un’utilità a ciascun creditore»).

Nella fase di liquidazione (art. 19) si applica la disciplina del concordato con cessione dei beni:

• viene nominato un liquidatore giudiziale;
• se l’acquirente dell’azienda o di specifici beni è già individuato, il liquidatore si limita a verificare «l’assenza di soluzioni migliori sul mercato»;
• è possibile la vendita di beni al soggetto designato anche prima dell’omologazione, se il piano così prevede; in tal caso, alla verifica sul mercato provvede l’ausiliario;
• per gli altri beni, si procede con procedure competitive ai sensi dell’art. 182 l.fall.

Marine, Transport & Logistics

The European Parliament in support of airlines: revision of the “use it or lose it” principle in respect of the slots for the summer season 2021. The action of the European Commission

1) New Insolvency Code

Entry into force postponed

• the measures setting up the early detection of distress and assisted composition procedure, perhaps the most important innovation of the CCI, was conceived in light of a stable economic framework and could not work properly in a situation in the aftermath of a global crisis;
• the introduction of a new legal framework, with inevitable uncertainties of interpretation and application, is not suitable in an economic emergency.

The entry into force of the CCI has therefore been pushed back by more than a year, when not only the worst phase of the crisis will be hopefully over, but also all those measures that appear necessary for the CCI to operate with a real chance of success will have been implemented both at a national and international level.

2) Declaration of Bankruptcy

Insolvency filings

Effects on time limits for claw-back actions

3) Concordato Preventivo and Debt Restructuring Agreements

Confirmed concordato and agreements - extension of payment terms

Pending concordato and debt restructuring agreements - possible submission of new plan and proposal, extension of deadlines

1. a term up to 90 days to submit a new concordato proposal or agreement, with a new plan;
2. an extension up to six months of the due dates envisaged in the concordato proposal or agreement already submitted and awaiting confirmation;
3. an extension up to 90 days of the deadline for submitting the concordato proposal or agreement.

These provisions are meant to support the "survival" of pending restructuring frameworks alternative to bankruptcy liquidation, avoiding the failure of arrangements with a real chance of success, were it not for the COVID-19 emergency.The first measure allows the debtor to submit, until the hearing set for the confirmation of the concordato proposal or agreement, an application to be authorized to submit a new proposal and plan, taking into account the economic and financial factors arisen as a result of the pandemic crisis. As to concordato proposals, however, this does not apply to those who have already been rejected by the vote of the creditors (these debtors would still be able, under general rules, to make a new filing, which should be more feasible considering the aforementioned termination of new bankruptcy filings).The term starts from the date of the Court order, so to avoid that it is shortened as a matter of fact.Reasonably, the new proposal and the new plan will have to undergo a new process of admission by the Court and vote by the creditors.The second measure allows the debtor to unilaterally modify the due dates originally envisaged in the concordato proposal or debt restructuring agreement. The debtor must file an application setting forth the new due dates - deferred by no more than six months – together with documentation supporting the request. The Court can directly proceed to confirmation of the amended concordato proposal or agreement, expressly acknowledging in the confirmation order the amended due dates.The third measure allows the debtor to apply for an extension up to 90 days of the term to submit the concordato proposal or debt restructuring agreement. The application can be made only before the term, already extended according to the ordinary rules, is about to expire. The extension is also allowed pending a request for declaration of bankruptcy, in order to increase the chances of saving the company. The application must specify the reasons for the extension, with specific reference to the events that occurred as a result of the epidemiological emergency COVID-19. The Court can grant the extension on the grounds of sound and justified reasons and - in the case of debt restructuring agreements - of the continued existence of the conditions for reaching an agreement with as many creditors as required under ordinary rules. In case of debt restructuring agreements, the cumbersome procedure provided for in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of Article 182-bis of the Bankruptcy Law should not be applied, in order to speed up the overall process.The ordinary rules regarding the interim management of the company under the supervision of the Court, expressly referred to, apply pending the extension of the terms.

4) Temporary relaxation of corporate rules

Net equity and dissolution of the company

Financial statements and going concern outlook

Shareholders' loans

The new Code (which will enter into force on 14 August 2020) provides some significant changes in the provisions related to the «concordato preventivo» procedure (namely, the composition with creditors), while the general framework remains mostly unchanged. We therefore focus here only on the changes with respect to the provisions of the Italian bankruptcy law currently in force.

Introduction

Amendments to the Civil Code in force since 16 March 2019

• (i) establish organizational, administrative and accounting structures appropriate to the nature and size of the company, in order to facilitate the early detection of an emerging state of distress; and
• (ii) promptly resort to the remedies provided by the CCI for overcoming a state of distress and preserving the business as a going concern.

Noteworthy is also the new third paragraph of Art. 2486 ICC on damages resulting from the violation by the Directors of their duties to preserve the asset value of the company for the benefit of creditors. A presumption will be that damage is equal to the decline of the balance sheet net worth of the company between the date when a cause of dissolution of the company occurred and the date when an insolvency procedure was started; however, should this test not be applicable due to a lack of accounting records or for other reasons, a further presumption will be that damage is equal to the difference between actual assets and liabilities in the judicial liquidation.

The main features of the CCI

• a) Procedures governed by the CCI

The CCI provides, on the one hand, the new out-of-court procedure of “assisted distress composition” (composizione assistita della crisi) referred to in § b) below (Articles 12-25) and, on the other hand, the procedures already existing, now defined as “distress and insolvency regulation procedures” (regolazione della crisi e dell’insolvenza), i.e.: (i) certified restructuring plans (Art. 56), (ii) debt restructuring agreements (Articles 57-64), (iii) composition with creditors (concordato preventivo) (Articles 84-120), (iv) judicial liquidation (Articles 121-267) into which it is renamed the current bankruptcy liquidation, and (v) compulsory administrative liquidation (Articles 293-316).The replacement of the terms “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt” in the CCI is mainly nominal, given that the new “judicial liquidation” retains the features of current bankruptcy.The procedure reserved to consumers and businesses not subject to insolvency procedures, currently governed by Law No. 3/2012, are now included in the CCI under the names of “restructuring of consumer debts” (Articles 67-73) and “minor composition with creditors” (Articles 74-83), as well as “controlled liquidation of the over-indebted” (Articles 268-277). 

• b) Early detection and assisted composition procedure (Articles 12-25)

The CCI provides for measures aimed at preventing insolvency, through warning tools which provide for “internal” reporting by the statutory auditors of the company and “external” reporting obligations by qualified public creditors (social security agencies, Tax Agencies and tax collectors), in the presence of certain indicators of a state of distress.Such a reporting is addressed to a newly created non-jurisdictional distress composition body ("OCRI") within the Chambers of Commerce and is aimed at triggering a consultation procedure (before a panel of professionals and experts designated ad hoc) which should help the distressed company to return to solvency, through agreements with creditors or resorting to a restructuring or insolvency procedure. Failing this (and recurring a state of insolvency), the OCRI sends a report to the Public Prosecutor, who can file with the Court for the opening of the judicial liquidation.Appropriate incentives are provided to the debtor (including reductions in tax and interest penalties, extra time for filing restructuring plans or agreements in judicial restructuring procedures, some criminal exemptions and softer penalties) where he voluntarily and timely resorted to the composition procedure.

• c) Protective measures (Articles 8, 20, 54-55)

The CCI provides new rules regarding protective measures for the debtor, pending both an out-of-Court or judicial restructuring procedure.The automatic stay of individual creditors’ enforcement and interim actions (currently triggered by a filing or pre-filing for a judicial restructuring procedure) will apply only if requested by the debtor. Moreover, the duration of the stay will be determined by the Court on a case-by-case basis (Art. 54).A stay may also be granted by the Court (Art. 20) in the context of the new out-of-Court assisted composition procedure of a state of distress.It is worth noting that the total duration of all stays granted to the debtor, in the various situations, including renewals and extensions, may never exceed twelve months (Art. 8).

• d) Venue (Article 27)

The law empowering the Government to issue the new Code included a directive to ensure that bankruptcy procedures be dealt with by more specialized judges, inter alia, by consolidating only in the major Courts the venue to deal with insolvency procedures.The CCI has only very conservatively implemented this directive, namely with respect to the concentration of venue for extraordinary administration procedures and groups of companies of significant size.

• e) Single proceeding to enter judicial restructuring and liquidation procedures (Articles 40-53)

The CCI provides a single procedure whereby all requests to start any of the different judicial restructuring or liquidation procedures with respect to the same business entity or consumer shall be dealt with. It is expressly provided for (Art. 7) that restructuring proceedings as an alternative to judicial liquidation must be considered first, provided that this is in the best interest of creditors.It should be noted, with respect to the request to start the judicial liquidation procedure, that the CCI provides that it can be filed also by the statutory auditors, and that the conditions allowing the Public Prosecutor to file it have been extended. On the other side, the initiative to start a judicial restructuring procedure remains reserved to the debtor.A significant innovation concerns the immediate enforceability of the judgment revoking the judicial liquidation, which is no longer conditioned on the decision being final and not subject to further appeal: Art. 53 lays down rules aiming to reconcile the inherently conflicting interests at stake.

• f) Certified restructuring plans (Art. 56)

Innovations are limited to providing that restructuring plans shall set forth (i) the milestones to check the actual implementation of the plan, and (ii) the actions to be taken in case these are not attained.

• g) Debt restructuring agreements (Articles 57-64)

The threshold of 60% of the total amount of creditors required to have signed the agreement is reduced to 50% in case no delay is provided for the payment of creditors who have not signed it, or temporary protective measures are not required (“facilitated agreements”, Art. 60).The possibility of extending the effects of the agreement to creditors who have not signed it is no longer limited to financial creditors, but only if the plan provides that the debtor continues operating the business (“extended  agreements”, Art. 61).New rules are introduced regarding the renewal of the certification of the plan by the expert, in the event substantial changes are made to the plan or to the agreement, even after confirmation by the Court: in this case, creditors can file an opposition (Art. 58).

• h) Concordato preventivo (composition with creditors) (Articles 84-120)

The CCI keeps the current structure of the concordato. However, the restructuring plan seems now limited (Art. 84) to the two schemes of (a) liquidating all assets, or (b) preserving the business as a going concern (directly, providing that creditors will be paid out of future earnings, or indirectly, through a sale of business units):

• (i) a concordato for pure liquidation purposes will be conditioned to the offer of external contributions increasing by at least 10% (compared to the alternative of the judicial liquidation) the satisfaction of unsecured creditors, which must be equal to at least 20%, as currently provided;
• (ii) a concordato preserving the business as a going concern, in its “indirect” form, is expressly permitted, but only if there is a commitment to keep at least half of the jobs for one year after confirmation of the concordato by the Court;
• (iii) a concordato preserving the business as a going concern, in its “direct” form, is not conditioned to any of the foregoing as to job retention or satisfaction to creditors;
• (iv) in case the plan provides to preserve the business (directly or indirectly) and at the same time to liquidate some of the assets (so-called "mixed" plan), the plan will still be considered preserving the business as a going concern (thus, with no minimum 20% dividend to unsecured creditors) if creditors are satisfied to a greater extent by the proceeds coming from the preservation of the business (in case of a sale of business units, proceeds from the sale of the warehouse are expressly included); however, irrespective of the actual amount arising from the (direct or indirect) preservation of the business, the requirement is always met if at least half of the jobs are retained for two years after confirmation.

With respect to the proposal, it should be noted that (a) no restriction is introduced as to the means to satisfy creditors, who can still be offered any cash or non-cash consideration, while (b) it is provided that in some cases creditors need to be divided in classes, including secured creditors who are not fully satisfied, holders of third-party guarantees, creditors making a concordato proposal and parties related to the same (Art. 85).A pre-filing (allowing a stay of creditors’ actions and a term – subject to Court supervision – to file the proposal and the plan) is still allowed, but with greater limitations: the maximum term is reduced to 60 days, which may be extended by a further 60 days only if there are no pending applications to opening the judicial liquidation.A significant departure from the current system is that the Court will be required to assess also the economic (and not only legal) feasibility of the plan supporting the proposal (Art. 47).The CCI (Art. 115) provides that, in the concordato providing for a full liquidation of assets, the judicial liquidator can always bring actions against directors and statutory auditors to recover damages arising from violations of their duties.

• i) From bankruptcy to judicial liquidation (Articles 121-267)

• (i) the rule prohibiting set-off of debts and receivables whit a debtor subject to judicial liquidation, in case receivables towards the latter were purchased in the year preceding or after the opening of the liquidation, has been widened to exclude any possible exception (Art. 155);
• (ii) the look-back period for claw-back actions has been anticipated to the submission of the application to open the judicial liquidation (Articles 163-166);
• (iii) a specific regulation has been provided for pending employment contracts, which remain on hold until the receiver chooses to withdraw or take over the contracts, within four months from the start of the liquidation, unless the business can be sold as a going concern (Art. 189) (special social security safeguards for employees are also provided by Art. 190);
• (iv) holders of pledges or mortgages on assets, which the debtor subject to judicial liquidation gave as security for a third-party debt, are now required to file a proof of debt to enforce their security (Art. 201);
• (v) the final deadline to file a proof of debt has been shortened to six months after the decision on the first lot of proofs of debt (Art. 208);
• (vi) a concordato fallimentare proposal by the debtor has been conditioned to additional contributions increasing by at least 10% the satisfaction of unsecured creditors (in line with the similar provision of the concordato preventivo) (Art. 240).

• j) Insolvency and groups of companies (Articles 284-292)

The CCI introduces a set of rules (so far missing in our system) for the management of the insolvency of groups of companies.This will allow to establish a single procedure for different companies of the group, on the basis of a single restructuring plan, while maintaining the principle of separation of assets and liabilities. Specific rules should allow a single venue for the group, but in case procedures take place before different courts the respective Judges, receivers or judicial commissioners are required to cooperate in order to facilitate a more efficient management of the procedures.

• k) Over-indebtedness procedures (Articles 65-83, 268-277)

The rules governing the insolvency procedures of smaller businesses, farmers and consumers (so-called over-indebtedness procedures), introduced by Law No. 3/2012, will now be found in the CCI.Also in this case, as for bankruptcy, changes in the name of the procedures (mentioned above under a) leave the substance mostly unchanged. The main innovations concern (i) an easing of certain requirements for admission to the procedures, (ii) the streamlining of some procedural steps, (iii) the extension to the creditors of the power (previously limited to the debtor) to request the opening of the controlled liquidation, (iv) specific rules for the joint treatment of the insolvency of over-indebted families, (v) the possibility for the debtor ,deserving the benefit, to obtain a discharge, following the controlled liquidation procedure, even in case creditors did not receive any payment.

• l) Compulsory administrative liquidation (Articles 293-316)

Compulsory liquidation remains the exclusive insolvency procedure for banking, financial intermediation, fiduciary and insurance companies. With respect to other companies subject to supervision by regulatory bodies, it will only be applicable if the liquidation is driven by situations of irregularity and not by insolvency. Coops (except those carrying out banking activities, etc.) and mutual assistance bodies are therefore exclusively subject to judicial liquidation (and are not subject to compulsory liquidation).

• m) Insolvency procedures and criminal interim measures (Articles 317-321)

The CCI provides a new set of rules dealing with the relationship between insolvency procedures and criminal interim measures, such as seizures. In brief, the CCI provides that criminal seizures aimed at confiscation prevail over judicial liquidation, while judicial liquidation prevails over the so-called “safeguard seizures” which have a precautionary function aimed at preventing further consequences of crimes.   The content of this article is only for information and does not constitute professional advice.For further information: Fabio Marelli.To receive our newsletter restructuring you can write to: restructuring@advant-nctm.com 

The case

The issue

The decision of the Tribunal

Commentary

The case

The issue

The decision of the Court

Commentary

The case

The issue

The decision of the Tribunal

Commentary

The case

The issue

The decision of the Court

Commentary

The case

The issues

The decisions of the Court

Commentary

The case

The issue

The decision of the Court

Commentary