News · Civil law · – October 2026
Article 17, paragraph 8, of Legislative Decree No 14 of 12 January 2019 (Italian Business Crisis and Insolvency Code, CCII), as in force on 24 October 2026, requires the expert, at the end of the engagement, to draw up a final report (relazione finale) with the content laid down by the directorial decree referred to in Article 13, paragraph 2. The report is uploaded to the platform and sent to the debtor, to those who took part in the negotiations and, where protective or interim measures were granted, to the judge who issued them, who declares their effects terminated. The exits under Article 23 depend on the report. A contract under paragraph 1, letter (a), produces the effects of Article 25-bis, paragraph 1, if, according to the report, it is capable of ensuring business continuity for at least two years. In debt restructuring agreements with extended effect (accordi di ristrutturazione ad efficacia estesa), the 75 per cent threshold in Article 61, paragraph 2, letter (c), is reduced to 60 per cent if the agreement appears from the final report or if the application for court approval (omologazione) is filed within sixty days of its communication, as provided by Article 23, paragraph 2, letter (b). Within the same sixty days, an application for access to a crisis and insolvency resolution tool may be filed even after the first hearing in proceedings for the opening of judicial liquidation (liquidazione giudiziale) brought by another party (Article 40, paragraph 10). The simplified arrangement with creditors for the liquidation of assets (concordato semplificato) under Article 25-sexies requires the expert to state in the report that the negotiations were conducted fairly and in good faith and that the solutions under Article 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, letters (a) and (b), are not feasible; the proposal for an arrangement by assignment of assets must be filed within sixty days of the communication, possibly through an application reserving the later filing of the proposal and plan. The court obtains the report and the expert’s opinion on the likely results of the liquidation and on the guarantees offered, assesses the procedural regularity (ritualità) of the proposal and appoints an auxiliary (paragraph 3); it approves the arrangement if the proposal does not prejudice creditors compared with judicial liquidation or controlled liquidation (liquidazione controllata) and in any case provides a benefit to each creditor (paragraph 5). The comparison with liquidation also applies to agreements with extended effect: non-adhering creditors must receive no less than they would obtain in a judicial liquidation opened on the date the application for court approval is filed (Article 61, paragraph 2, letter (d)).
The First Civil Section of the Italian Court of Cassation treats the report as something to be checked, not simply adopted. In order No 31641 of 4 December 2025 it held that the review of procedural regularity under Article 25-sexies, paragraph 3, is not confined to a formal check: it is a review of substantive legality covering the completeness and reliability of the final report, so that statements with no reasoning, or with reasoning not borne out by the documents, make the proposal irregular and inadmissible. Applying that principle, order No 503 of 9 January 2026 upheld the decision of the lower courts, which had found that the debtor had not acted in good faith because its proposal was unworkable from the outset, given its very large debt to the tax authorities, and held that the court is not required to hear the debtor before declaring the proposal inadmissible. Order No 623 of 12 January 2026, while declaring the appeal on points of law inadmissible, stated a principle of law in the interest of the law (Article 363, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure): the court’s review extends to whether the conditions of access to the negotiated settlement laid down in Article 12 existed from the outset, assessed through the documents listed in Article 25-sexies, paragraph 1, and in Article 39. The negotiated settlement cannot be started without any prospect of recovery merely to gain access to the arrangement. The same order held that the court’s decision declaring the proposal inadmissible may be challenged before the court of appeal (reclamo), by analogy with Article 47, paragraphs 4 and 5, but that the court of appeal’s decree on that challenge cannot be appealed to the Court of Cassation. On timing, order No 13997 of 13 May 2026 clarified that the final report must always be drawn up at the end of the engagement, whoever requested the closure of the file (archiviazione), and that the exception in Article 40, paragraph 10, presupposes that the negotiations have been completed: the sixty days run from the communication of the report, not from the debtor’s mere withdrawal from the negotiated settlement. In our view, a report that does not document the negotiations and the comparison with liquidation exposes the simplified arrangement to a finding of inadmissibility at the initial stage.
Summary note by the CommercialistiAvvocati network, based on specialised legal and practice sources. The text does not reproduce original contributions and does not constitute professional advice.