Independence of the Certifier in the Preventive Arrangement: Analysis of Order No. 20059 of 2024

The Court of Cassation, in order no. 20059 dated July 22, 2024, addressed a topic of crucial relevance in the context of insolvency proceedings, namely the independence of the certifier in the preventive arrangement. This decision falls within a complex regulatory framework and requires a careful analysis of the subjective requirements set forth by bankruptcy law and the civil code.

The Regulatory Context

The Italian bankruptcy law, particularly articles 67, paragraph 3, letter d) and 161, paragraph 3, establishes the criteria for the admissibility of the preventive arrangement. The independence of the certifier is fundamental to ensure the transparency and correctness of the procedure. The Court clarified that the certifier cannot have relationships with the debtor that could compromise their impartiality. This is particularly important, as a non-independent certifying activity can undermine stakeholders' trust in the insolvency procedure.

The Ruling and its Impacts

Certifier - Subjective requirements - Independence from the debtor - Symptomatic hypothesis according to articles 67, paragraph 3, letter d), bankruptcy law, and 2399 civil code - Content - Limits - Case. Regarding the admissibility of the preventive arrangement, the professional designated pursuant to article 161, paragraph 3, bankruptcy law does not possess the independence requirements under articles 67, paragraph 3, letter d), bankruptcy law, and 2399 civil code, when they have had any relationship with the debtor, of duration or intended to be defined during the performance of autonomous work, whether in existence at the time of the preventive arrangement petition or having concluded prior, provided that it was carried out within the five years preceding the date of the assignment. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled the appealed decision, which, limiting the presumption of non-independence to cases of continuous activities carried out in favor of the requesting entrepreneur, deemed irrelevant the previously assigned task to the certifier to draft a sworn statement, as it concerned a one-off service).

The Court annulled a previous decision, emphasizing that even a one-off assignment (one-time) falls among situations that can compromise the certifier's independence. This aspect is crucial as it broadens the scope of the rules regarding independence, suggesting that every relationship, even if episodic, must be considered with care.

Conclusions

In summary, order no. 20059 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the independence requirements for certifiers in the preventive arrangement. Professionals in the field must pay particular attention to these requirements, in order to avoid compromising the validity of their certifications and, consequently, the very admissibility of the arrangement. The clarity provided by the Court of Cassation in this context is an important reference point for the legal and financial world, which must always ensure maximum transparency and correctness in insolvency procedures.

Bianucci Law Firm