Commentary on Ordinance No. 9657 of 2024: Coercive Collection of Subsidized Credits

The recent Ordinance No. 9657 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important interpretation regarding public support interventions and the possibility of credit recovery by the manager of the Guarantee Fund for small and medium-sized enterprises. The ruling addresses crucial issues such as asset liability and the right of subrogation of the Fund manager, outlining a regulatory framework that may have significant repercussions for the parties involved.

The Restitution Right of a Public Nature

According to the ordinance, once the funder is satisfied, the manager of the Guarantee Fund acquires a restitution right of a privileged public nature. This right is no longer aimed at recovering the common law credit arising from the original financing but focuses on the reacquisition of public resources allocated to the Fund. This implies that the manager can initiate coercive recovery actions even against third-party guarantors.

Public support interventions provided in the form of public guarantee grants - Credit of the Fund manager who has satisfied the funder - Art. 8-bis of Decree Law No. 3 of 2015, converted by Law No. 33 of 2015 - Recovery proceedings - Applicability against third-party guarantors - Existence - Foundation. In the context of public support interventions provided in the form of public guarantee grants, the manager of the Guarantee Fund for small and medium-sized enterprises, pursuant to Law No. 662 of 1996, who has satisfied the funder, substituting itself to them, acquires a restitution right of a privileged public nature, no longer aimed at recovering the common law credit generated by the initial financing but directed at reacquiring public resources for the Fund's availability, with the consequence that the procedure for coercive collection of so-called subsidized credits, pursuant to Article 17 of Legislative Decree No. 146 of 1999, is applicable to it, even against third-party guarantors, according to Article 8-bis, paragraph 3, of Decree Law No. 3 of 2015, converted with amendments by Law No. 33 of 2015, even if the credit arose before the entry into force of the regulation, given that such provision is not authentically interpretative, nor innovative, but merely repetitive and confirmatory of the already existing regime.

Implications for Third-Party Guarantors

The ordinance clarifies that the possibility of exercising coercive collection also extends to third-party guarantors. This is a crucial point, as it implies that those who have provided guarantees for a subsidized financing may also be subject to the same credit recovery procedures. The consequences of this interpretation can be significant, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that have relied on these guarantees in the context of public financing.

  • Coercive collection applicable even to pre-existing credits.
  • Right of subrogation of the Fund manager in the event of funder satisfaction.
  • Possible negative impact on the finances of third-party guarantors.

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 9657 of 2024 highlights a fundamental aspect of the law by restoring to the competent authorities the ability to recover public resources through coercive collection procedures. This not only clarifies the rights of the Guarantee Fund manager but also emphasizes the responsibilities of third-party guarantors, creating a regulatory context that could influence the future choices of economic operators. For those operating in the sector, it is essential to stay informed about these dynamics to avoid surprises and manage the risks associated with subsidized financing adequately.

Bianucci Law Firm