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

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Ordinance No. 16166 of 2024, offers an important interpretation regarding the interruption of prescription in the context of extraordinary administration of large companies in crisis. In particular, the Court clarified that the interruptive effect of prescription occurs only following the admission of the credit to the liabilities of the procedure, excluding that the mere presentation of the application for admission can have a similar effect.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The reference legislation for extraordinary administration is contained in the Bankruptcy Law, particularly 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 prescription, a principle rooted in the Civil Code, Article 2945.

Generally. In terms of extraordinary administration of large companies in crisis, the interruption of prescription in favor of creditors, with a permanent effect for the entire duration of the procedure, occurs only following the admission of the relevant credit to the state of liabilities of the procedure, so that no similar effect can be recognized to the mere presentation by the creditor of the application for admission to the liabilities, which cannot be equated to the filing of a judicial request. (In this case, the Supreme Court established that the mere request for admission to the liabilities produced, by itself, a mere instantaneous interruptive effect of the prescription, since the request was not followed either by the deposit by the Commissioners of the list of admitted creditors or - since the requesting creditor had not filed an opposition - by an admissive provision of the court, proving then irrelevant that the extraordinary administration was followed by the opening of bankruptcy).

The Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for creditors and companies in extraordinary administration. In fact, it clarifies that:

  • The interruption of prescription occurs only with the admission of the credit to the liabilities.
  • The simple presentation of the application for admission does not equate to a judicial request.
  • It is necessary for the creditor to follow the legal procedures to obtain protection of the prescription.

Essentially, the Court of Cassation aimed to prevent confusion and uncertainties in the system by establishing that the only way to ensure the interruption of prescription is to follow the correct procedures and obtain formal admission.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16166 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding extraordinary administration and prescription, reaffirming 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 to protect the rights of creditors but also represents a step toward a more transparent management of corporate crises.

Bianucci Law Firm