1) Italian Supreme Court: the insolvency administrator may take over, even on appeal, the revocatory action brought by an individual creditor

By judgment No. 25475/2026, published on 19 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court ruled on the insolvency receiver’s taking over of the ordinary revocatory action brought by an individual creditor under Article 2901 of the Civil Code.

The Italian Supreme Court held that, where the debtor’s bankruptcy supervenes during the course of individual revocatory proceedings, the insolvency receiver may take over from the claimant creditor, accepting the case in the state it is in, rather than instituting separate proceedings under Article 66 of the Bankruptcy Law (now Article 166 of the Code of Business Crisis and Insolvency). This mechanism allows the interests of the wider body of creditors to prevail over the protection of the individual creditor.

At a procedural level, the Court clarified that such intervention represents a mere substitution of the insolvency administrator for the original claimant and is not, therefore, subject to the limits applicable to the raising of new claims and defenses. Where the proceedings are already pending on appeal, neither the time-limit for a cross-appeal under Article 343 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, nor the preclusions under Article 345, paragraph 1, of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, bar the takeover.

To access the decision, click here.

2) Italian Supreme Court: a declaration of nullity of a financing agreement requires precise identification of the criminal provisions alleged to have been violated

By order No. 25533/2026, published on 18 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court ruled on the nullity of a financing agreement for violation of mandatory criminal provisions, with particular regard to so-called abusive lending.

The Italian Supreme Court first clarified that abusive lending — that is, lending granted to a party with no reasonable prospect of recovery, in circumstances known or knowable to the lender — is not, in itself, void. Nullity exists only where the agreement was entered into in violation of mandatory provisions, including the case in which it was used as an instrument for the commission of an offence (a so-called “contract-offence”).

In relation to evidence, the Court clarified that the party raising nullity for violation of criminal provisions must precisely identify the criminal provisions alleged to have been violated, so as to allow the specific offence and the lender’s participation in it to be established.

In the absence of such specific identification, it is not possible to resort, on a subsidiary basis, to the general clauses of public policy and morality: doing so would result in excessive indeterminacy of the category of contractual invalidity, to the prejudice of legal certainty and the stability of economic relationships.

To access the decision, click here.