Commentary on Judgment No. 16166 of 2024: Interruption of Statute of Limitations in Extraordinary Administration

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, Order No. 16166 of 2024, offers an important interpretation regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations in the context of extraordinary administration of large companies in crisis. In particular, the Court clarified that the statute of limitations interruption effect occurs only after the credit has been admitted to the procedure's liabilities, excluding that the mere submission of the admission request can have a similar effect.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The reference legislation for extraordinary administration is contained in the Bankruptcy Law, specifically in Articles 208 and 209. These articles outline the framework for managing corporate crises, establishing the procedures for admission to liabilities and the consequences for creditors. The Court reiterated that only formal admission to the liabilities allows for the interruption of the statute of limitations, a principle rooted in the Civil Code, Article 2945.

In general. Regarding the extraordinary administration of large companies in crisis, the interruption of the statute of limitations in favor of creditors, with a permanent effect for the entire duration of the procedure, occurs only after the admission of the relevant credit to the procedure's liabilities. Therefore, no similar effect can be recognized for the mere submission by the creditor of the request for admission to liabilities, which is not comparable to initiating judicial proceedings. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court established that the mere request for admission to liabilities produced, in itself, a mere instantaneous interruption of the statute of limitations, as the request was not followed either by the filing by the Commissioners of the list of admitted creditors or – since the applicant creditor did not file an appeal – by an admission order from the court, it being irrelevant that the extraordinary administration was subsequently followed by the opening of bankruptcy).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for creditors and companies under extraordinary administration. Indeed, it clarifies that:

• The interruption of the statute of limitations occurs only with the admission of the credit to the liabilities.
• The mere submission of the admission request is not equivalent to a judicial claim.
• It is necessary for the creditor to follow the legal path to obtain the protection of the statute of limitations.

In essence, the Court of Cassation intended to avoid confusion and uncertainty in the system by establishing that the only way to ensure the interruption of the statute of limitations is to follow the correct procedures and obtain formal admission.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16166 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the matter of extraordinary administration and the statute of limitations, reiterating the importance of following legal procedures for the protection of creditors' rights. This emphasis on formality and the need for a clear process is crucial for both legal professionals and companies involved in crisis situations. Understanding these aspects not only helps protect creditors' rights but also represents a step towards more transparent management of corporate crises.