L’ex socio non è postergato, ma ha diritto di voice sulla ristrutturazione trasversale (dei debiti)?

[Machine translation] The ruling in question stems from a request for an insinuation of bankruptcy liabilities made by a shareholder concerning the credit relating to the value of the liquidation fee resulting from the withdrawal made against the company. , The delegated judge, in the then opposing decree, had decided to qualify it as “postponed”, with the consequent analogical application of art. 2467 of the Italian Civil Code, given that at the time (dating back over time) of the dissolution of the corporate relationship, the company would have already found itself in a situation of significant imbalance between debts and equity, in which the former were well over double the second. , This decree was appealed by the withdrawing shareholder before the Court of Cassation, which, with order no. 30725 filed on 6.11.2023, established that the credit deriving from the withdrawal of the shareholder does not apply the regulations on postponement dictated by art. 2467 of the Italian Civil Code, even if the company is subsequently subject to bankruptcy proceedings and the request for liquidation of the share, resulting from the dissolution of the corporate relationship, was made when insinuating the liabilities. , In the note — after summarizing the motivation (resulting in a cassation with referral to the Court of Milan for a new examination of the case), outlining the assumptions for the postponement and reconstructing the state of the art on the controversial nature of the withdrawal — we will try to propose some operational reflections.