Commentary on Judgment No. 18826 of 2024 on the Competing Proposal in Preventive Concordat

The judgment no. 18826 of July 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on the discipline of preventive concordat, particularly regarding the competing proposal pursuant to Article 163, paragraph 4, of the Bankruptcy Law. In this article, we will analyze the implications of the judgment and the meaning of the declaration of inadmissibility, as well as the possibilities for appeal.

The Declaration of Inadmissibility and Its Implications

The provision that establishes the inadmissibility of the competing proposal plays a crucial role in the context of preventive concordat. The Court has established that such a provision is not subject to cassation appeal, highlighting its temporary and non-definitive nature. This means that the decision of inadmissibility can be reviewed and modified at any time, in light of new circumstances or a different assessment of pre-existing situations.

  • The inadmissibility provision is revocable.
  • The review can occur following new evidence.
  • It is possible to oppose the approval of the debtor's proposal.
Competing proposal pursuant to Article 163, paragraph 4, Bankruptcy Law - Declaration of inadmissibility - Appeal pursuant to Article 26 Bankruptcy Law - Appealability to cassation - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of preventive concordat, the provision that decides on the appeal against the declaration of inadmissibility of the competing proposal submitted pursuant to Article 161, paragraph 4, Bankruptcy Law is not subject to cassation appeal, having a temporary and non-definitive nature, being revocable and modifiable at any time for a new and different assessment of the pre-existing factual circumstances or for the emergence of new circumstances, certainly allowing the proponent to assert any possible profile of illegitimacy of the decree through opposition to the approval of the debtor's proposal.

The Role of the Proponent and the Possibilities of Opposition

An important aspect of the judgment concerns the right of the proponent to assert any profiles of illegitimacy of the decree. The Court of Cassation clarified that, despite the impossibility of appealing to cassation, the proponent retains the right to oppose the approval of the debtor's proposal. This aspect provides a form of protection for creditors and interested parties, ensuring that any illegitimacy can be discussed and assessed in the opposition proceedings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 18826 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding preventive concordat, highlighting the non-appealability to cassation of the declaration of inadmissibility and the right of the proponent to oppose the approval of the debtor's proposal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of flexibility and the possibility of reviewing decisions in the context of insolvency procedures. This is essential to ensure that all relevant circumstances can be adequately considered, thus promoting a balance between the needs of debtors and the rights of creditors.

Bianucci Law Firm