Preventive Concordat and Contested Credits: Judgment No. 21431 of 2024

The recent ruling No. 21431 of July 31, 2024, by the Court of Appeal of Bari has raised important questions regarding the management of credits subject to judicial dispute within the context of the preventive concordat. This article aims to analyze the significance of this ruling, highlighting the implications for both debtors and creditors involved in the procedure.

The Context of the Preventive Concordat

The preventive concordat is a tool provided by bankruptcy law that allows a struggling entrepreneur to restructure their debts through an agreement with creditors. One of the most delicate issues concerns the inclusion of contested credits, that is, those on which legal disputes are ongoing. The Court of Appeal of Bari reiterated that, in general, the presence of such credits should not prevent their inclusion in the homogeneous classes of the concordat proposal.

The Reasons Behind the Ruling

Generally, in terms of preventive concordat, the existence of credits subject to judicial contestation does not preclude their proper inclusion in one of the homogeneous classes provided for in the proposal, or in a specific class reserved for them, fulfilling this requirement, which falls on the debtor and is subject to critical control over the regularity of the procedure that the court must directly fulfill, to a fundamental need for information of the entire creditor class: on one hand, such omission would harm the interests of those who do not yet have a definitive assessment of their rights (but who may be admitted to vote, pursuant to Article 176 of the bankruptcy law, with the provision of specific treatment in the event that the claims are confirmed or modified in court); on the other hand, it would alter the forecasts of the satisfaction plan for other certain creditors, not allowing them to express accurate prognostic evaluations and to act in a fully informed manner regarding their vote.

The principle highlighted by the Court emphasizes the importance of ensuring correct information to all creditors, so that they can exercise their rights consciously. The inclusion of contested credits, in fact, not only protects the interests of those who do not yet have a definitive assessment but also allows other creditors to accurately evaluate the satisfaction plan proposed by the debtor.

Implications for Creditors and Debtors

  • Guarantee of Transparency: the inclusion of contested credits provides a clear view of the debt situation.
  • Rights of Creditors: creditors can express an informed and conscious vote, thereby influencing the outcome of the concordat.
  • Risks of Omission: the absence of contested credits could compromise the interests of creditors awaiting an assessment.

This ruling represents an important step towards greater clarity and fairness in preventive concordat procedures, affirming a principle that could serve as a guide for courts in future cases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 21431 of 2024 offers a clear perspective on the importance of including contested credits in the preventive concordat. The Court of Appeal of Bari, confirming that this requirement is essential to guarantee the right to information for creditors, has drawn a fundamental line of demarcation for the proper conduct of bankruptcy procedures. It is therefore crucial for professionals in the field to take this jurisprudential orientation into account in their daily practices.

Bianucci Law Firm