Con sentenza n. 348 dell’8 gennaio 2025, la Suprema Corte di Cassazione con un’interessante decisione ha delineato il concetto di “continuità aziendale” e i criteri di accertamento che devono essere impiegati, in relazione al giudizio di omologa di una proposta di Concordato Preventivo “misto”.

Con sentenza n. 4168 del 15 febbraio 2024, la Corte di Cassazione ha affermato che appare senz’altro idonea a giustificare l’eccezione di inadempimento e a paralizzare il diritto al compenso del professionista la condotta  antigiuridica  dell’organo  sindacale che, in un’operazione di fusione societaria che ha prodotto un rilevante danno per la società incorporante, abbia omesso di verificare la situazione patrimoniale ed economica della società che si andava ad incorporare, anche mediante richiesta di documentazione.

On 2 August 2022, the Italian Supreme Court issued its judgment in Case no. 23980 stating, inter alia, that the five-year period during which an innovative start-up (“start-up innovativa”) can benefit from the favourable regulation set forth in Law Decree no. 179 of 18 October 2012 shall start from the date of its incorporation.

 1. Introduction

The new Regulation follows on the path of Regulation No. 1346/2000, representing the last step of a process which has been started years ago. European Union authorities resorted also to other means in this direction: aside to the Regulation, a Recommendation has been issued in 2014, inviting Member States to adopt internal procedures more favourable to restructuring (rather than liquidating) distressed businesses.

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

The Supreme Court of Cassation (19 October 2017, No. 24682) discerns the respective scope of application of the criteria for the liquidation of compensation to the lawyer in case there was no specific agreement between the parties

The case

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court with two recent decisions (6 April 2017, No. 8903 and 13 April 2017, No. 9547) confirmed that the Public Prosecutor is entitled to file for bankruptcy also in case he became aware of the insolvency in the course of a probe regarding other companies or individuals and within the concordato preventivo procedure.

The case