Insolvency Code Reform: The Innovations of the Third Corrective Decree

1. The fact

   The legislative evolution culminating in Legislative Decree 136/2024 has been extensively documented by publications such as Il Sole 24 Ore and Ipsoa Quotidiano, which followed the publication in the Official Gazette on September 27, 2024. The matter does not concern a single judicial dispute, but a change in the regulatory paradigm applicable to all procedures introduced after September 28, 2024. According to Diritto della Crisi, the corrective decree was created to definitively align the national system with the EU Insolvency Directive 2019/1023. The procedural stage of this reform is that of full operability, with transitional provisions that also influence pending proceedings regarding the interpretation of the new tax cram-down and the simplification of access to Negotiated Composition. Media attention has focused on the rule's ability to prevent the judicial liquidation of still-viable businesses.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The core of the corrective decree lies in the amendment of over 50 articles of the Insolvency Code (CCII). Article 12 CCII clarifies that access to Negotiated Composition is possible even in cases of reversible insolvency, expanding the debtor's scope of action. Article 17 CCII strengthens the role of the independent expert as a facilitator of negotiations. Of fundamental importance are the articles relating to the so-called cram-down: Article 63 CCII for restructuring agreements and Article 88 CCII for preventive concordats, which now specify the conditions under which the Court can impose approval despite the dissent of social security institutions or the financial administration. For small businesses, Article 25-sexies CCII introduces significant innovations in the simplified concordat, allowing the inertia of the tax authorities to be overcome if the proposal is not worse than the liquidation alternative.

3. What case law says

   Case law from lower courts anticipated many of the solutions later crystallized in the corrective decree. Constitutional jurisprudence has recently reiterated that the cram-down mechanism is legitimate as it aims to balance the protection of public credit with the preservation of productive business complexes. The orientations of the lower courts have clarified that the dissent of the financial administration must be based on an objective comparison between the proposed plan and the proceeds of the atomistic liquidation of assets. According to the Court of Bologna, the expert's role is not that of a public certifier, but of a feasibility attester, whose report forms the basis for the judge's assessment of convenience. Furthermore, there is a debate as to whether the inertia of the tax authorities during negotiations can justify the Court's substitutive intervention during the approval stage.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. It is essential to analytically document the Negotiated Composition phase, as the failure of negotiations is the prerequisite for accessing the simplified concordat with a cram-down.
   2. The expert's report must contain a rigorous comparison with the liquidation scenario, as it represents the key document for convincing the judge to exercise substitutive power.
   3. Lawyers must pay maximum attention to the timeliness of access to early warning tools to prevent the crisis from becoming irreversible, which would preclude the use of new regulatory benefits.
   4. Managing tax debt now requires an integrated strategy that anticipates from the outset the possibility of forced restructuring in the event of administrative silence.

References: D.Lgs. 14/2019 (Codice della Crisi d'Impresa e dell'Insolvenza)D.Lgs. 136/2024 (Terzo Correttivo CCII)Art. 12 CCIIArt. 25-sexies CCIIArt. 63 CCIIArt. 88 CCII

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 30 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction