The Court of Civil Cassation, section I, July 23, 2021, no. 21190, pronounced on the content of the composition plan, rejecting the claimant’s thesis according to which the provision of art. 161, paragraph 2, letter e) of the Bankruptcy Law must be interpreted restrictively, in the sense that the “analytical description” of the fulfillment would stop at the mere modalities of execution of the service referred to in the proposal, in which it would be exhausted.
For the Supreme Court, on the other hand, “the function of the plan is to provide a tool to be able to assess the reliability and feasibility of the proposal, which is formulated by the debtor: thus on the part of the creditors, as well as, and even before that, on the part of the court (within the limits seen in n. 6 above).
Given this premise, there can therefore be no doubt that – in the context of the issue of the “modalities of performance” – primary importance is not given to the point of performance as such, but rather to that relating to the steps by means of which the performance can become concretely feasible. And that, in correlation, the normative prescription in question – for the case of an arrangement in continuity – requires, as correctly underlined by the appealed sentence, the “analysis of the concrete modalities of implementation of the reorganization” and therefore the explanation of “how” the debtor intends to concretely achieve the result that the proposal delivers to the creditors”.