Content developed with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by the author.
What Cassazione 7663/2026 means for UK institutional creditors in continuity concordato proceedings — and the five audit steps to take before the opposition window closes
You own a blocking position. That is what your credit committee was told when the Italian borrower first entered restructuring. The thesis was straightforward: coordinate dissent across enough creditor classes, and the court cannot confirm the plan. That thesis is now wrong.
On 30 March 2026, the Italian Court of Cassation handed down / issued Judgment No. 7663 (Italian Court of Cassation, Third Civil Division, Sentence of 30 March 2026, No. 7663 (Cass. civ., Sez. III, sent. 30 marzo 2026 n. 7663)) and confirmed that under Art. 112(2) of Legislative Decree 14/2019 (the Codice della Crisi d'Impresa e dell'Insolvenza, Italy's Business Crisis and Insolvency Code, hereafter the CCII), forced confirmation of a going-concern composition with creditors (concordato preventivo) requires the assent of just one creditor class. One. The rest can dissent en bloc and the plan still proceeds to confirmation — what Italian law calls omologazione forzosa, or forced homologation.
If your bondholder group holds a minority of the economic exposure across all classes, you have no veto. What you do have is a 30-day window to challenge the plan on substantive grounds. Miss it, and the court will not hear you.
The error is structural, not careless. UK practitioners arriving at an Italian restructuring bring the mental model of the English scheme of arrangement or the restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. In those procedures, dissenting creditors can vote down a plan at class level, and courts apply cross-class cram-down only after a full fairness assessment conducted with significant judicial discretion. The timeline is flexible. Late evidence is routinely admitted. Courts engage actively with competing valuation experts.
Italian procedure works differently. Unlike the English restructuring plan, the Italian concordato preventivo is confirmed by the tribunale (the first-instance commercial court) within a codified procedural framework. Once the court publishes the draft homologation decree, creditors who did not vote in favour have precisely 30 days to file a formal opposition under Art. 109 CCII. That deadline is not a guideline. Italian courts have no discretion to receive an opposition filed on day 31. There is no equivalent of the English court's inherent jurisdiction to extend time for procedural fairness. If your Italian counsel is not retained and briefed before the vote closes, you are already behind.
Before this ruling, sophisticated creditor groups contested the minimum-consent threshold under Art. 112(2) CCII. Some lower courts had required approval by a majority of voting classes, or at least two classes, before permitting forced homologation. That ambiguity has now been resolved. The Italian Court of Cassation has now read the provision literally: a single class voting in favour is sufficient for the court to proceed with forced confirmation, provided the absolute-priority and best-interest tests are met.
The ruling aligns Italian law more closely with Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code's cram-down mechanism, but with one critical difference: the Italian opposition window is far shorter than the US objection period, and Italian courts do not hold contested confirmation hearings in the same adversarial style. Objections are filed in writing. The court rules on the papers. There is no US-style confirmation hearing with live expert testimony lasting days.
The practical result: the moment a continuity concordato preventivo is filed, foreign bondholders' counsel must treat the absolute-priority and best-interest analyses as urgent, live workstreams — not post-confirmation grievances.
Yes, but with a nuance that matters for bondholders.
Art. 112(2) CCII makes forced homologation subject to two substantive tests. First, no dissenting class may receive treatment less favourable than it would receive in a liquidazione giudiziale — Italy's judicial liquidation procedure, broadly equivalent to an English administration ending in asset realisation. This is the best-interest-of-creditors test. Second, the absolute-priority rule applies: no junior class may receive value unless every senior dissenting class is paid in full, unless that senior class consents.
Italian courts assess both tests on the evidence presented at the homologation hearing. The plan proponent bears the burden of demonstrating compliance. But the dissenting creditor bears the burden of raising the objection within the statutory window. Courts do not audit plans of their own motion.
The governing maxim here is nemo iudex sine actore — no judge without a claimant. In restructuring terms: the court will not protect a creditor who does not ask.
A dissenting creditor files a formal written opposition (opposizione) with the tribunale handling the proceeding. The opposition must be filed within 30 days of the publication of the draft homologation decree in the public insolvency register (registro delle imprese), as required by Art. 109 CCII.
The opposition must identify specific legal and factual grounds. Italian courts reject oppositions framed as general disagreement with the plan's commercial terms. Accepted grounds include: the plan fails the best-interest test because the liquidation scenario has been undervalued; a junior class receives equity or warrants while the dissenting senior class is not paid in full; the feasibility opinion provided by the plan's independent expert (attestatore) is methodologically flawed; or the classification of the creditor's claim is incorrect in a way that materially affects distribution.
A bondholder group acting through a representative (common in syndicated structures) must verify that the representative has authority to file on behalf of the full group. Italian procedural rules on standing are strict. An opposition filed by an entity that cannot demonstrate the underlying claim risks being declared inadmissible.
Thirty days from publication of the draft homologation decree. In large restructurings, that publication date is not always prominently signalled to foreign creditors monitoring the file remotely. The register entry can appear on a working day with no advance notice.
In our files, the most common mistake is a UK bondholder team that has engaged Italian counsel for the vote phase but not instructed them to monitor the register for the homologation publication. The opposition window then runs — sometimes entirely — before anyone outside Italy notices it has started. Retaining Italian counsel on a standing watch brief costs a fraction of the economic exposure at risk.
The following checklist reflects practice-derived steps, not academic commentary. Each must be completed before the 30-day opposition window expires.
Step one: claim classification audit. Verify that your bond instruments are correctly classified in the plan. Italian CCII class formation follows economic homogeneity principles. A secured bondholder incorrectly placed in an unsecured class loses distribution priority. Check the classification against the security documentation and Italian law on privilegio (statutory preference rights) applicable to your instruments.
Step two: collateral valuation review. Obtain or commission an independent valuation of the assets securing your position. The plan's attestatore produces a liquidation scenario; challenge it if the methodology undervalues realisable assets. Italian restructuring practice commonly uses going-concern valuations that depress liquidation figures. A difference of even 5–10% on a EUR 200 million secured bond changes the best-interest calculation materially.
Step three: liquidation scenario stress-test. Model the judicial liquidation outcome independently. Compare it with the plan distribution to your class. If you would receive more in liquidation than under the plan, you have a viable best-interest objection. Document the methodology: Italian courts expect a reasoned expert opinion, not a spreadsheet.
Step four: waterfall parity check across classes. Map every creditor class and its proposed treatment. Identify any class junior to yours that receives value — equity upside, warrants, deferred consideration — while your class is haircut. That structure triggers the absolute-priority challenge. Bondholders in syndicated Italian deals often find that equity retained by existing shareholders, or value allocated to trade creditors through operational continuity, sits below them economically but ahead of them in realised benefit.
Step five: feasibility opinion scrutiny. The attestatore's feasibility opinion is a gating document. If the business plan underlying the continuity concordato is commercially unrealistic — revenue projections inconsistent with sector benchmarks, cost assumptions that do not survive independent review — the plan fails the feasibility requirement regardless of the absolute-priority analysis. Engage a financial adviser with Italian restructuring experience to review the opinion against public sector data and comparable transactions.
After Cassazione 7663/2026, not through the vote alone.
A UK fund holding, say, 40% of a senior secured bond class that itself constitutes one of four creditor classes cannot prevent forced homologation if any other class consents. The numerical blocking strategy is gone. The fund's leverage is now entirely in the opposition proceedings and in any subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal (Corte d'Appello).
This matters for credit documentation on new Italian deals. Covenants that were drafted on the assumption that coordinated dissent creates blocking power may need to be revised. Restructuring support agreements and lock-up agreements should now expressly address the obligation to file opposition as a coordinated group action, not merely to vote against.
The intellectual parallel is instructive. As Mancur Olson argued in The Logic of Collective Action (1965), coordinated group resistance requires individual incentives to remain aligned when the collective instrument — here, the numerical veto — is removed. Foreign bondholder groups in Italian restructurings will now fragment faster once the vote fails, because each member must individually assess whether filing opposition is worth the cost. Creditors who act first, and act correctly, will disproportionately shape the court's homologation decision.
The CCII itself was adopted to implement Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks. That Directive requires Member States to provide effective mechanisms for dissenting creditors to challenge confirmation on best-interest grounds. Italy's implementation is technically compliant, but the 30-day window and the strictly written procedure mean that compliance, in practice, requires advance preparation.
Italy's Council of State (Consiglio di Stato) and the constitutional courts are not involved in concordato proceedings. Opposition and appeal lie within the civil court hierarchy: first-instance tribunal, then Court of Appeal. Panato Law Firm advises on proceedings before the tribunals and courts of appeal; proceedings before the Italian Court of Cassation are handled by separately qualified counsel.
The next concrete step, if your bondholder group has exposure to an active Italian concordato preventivo, is to instruct Italian counsel to pull the current register file today, establish the publication date of the draft homologation decree if already issued, and determine how many days remain in the opposition window. If the window has not yet opened, commission the five-step audit immediately. Waiting for the vote result to become final before beginning the analysis is the mistake this ruling was designed to punish.
Can a foreign bondholder participate in an Italian concordato preventivo vote from outside Italy?
Yes. Voting is conducted through the procedure administered by the court-appointed commissioner (commissario giudiziale), and foreign creditors with admitted claims vote in their assigned class. Remote participation is standard. Your Italian counsel must ensure your claim has been correctly admitted and classified before the vote opens — a challenge after the vote is procedurally more difficult.
What happens if the Italian court rejects our opposition at homologation?
The dissenting creditor can appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days of the homologation decree. The appeal is on points of law and fact but does not automatically suspend the plan. Suspension of the homologation during appeal requires a separate urgent application and is granted sparingly. If the plan has already been implemented by the time the appeal is decided, the practical remedies are limited to damages rather than plan reversal.
Is there any early-warning mechanism to track when the Italian homologation draft is published?
The publication appears in the registro delle imprese — Italy's official business register, a public database maintained by the local Chamber of Commerce. Automated monitoring of the register for a specific company is possible and is a standard instruction to Italian counsel in active restructuring matters. There is no equivalent of the UK's Companies House notification service for restructuring events, so active monitoring is the only reliable method.
HREFLANG BLOCK:
Editorial Team — Panato Law Firm Staff
