Strategic Exit in Italy: The Asset Deal Alternative

• Andrea Lovisatti

I. Introduction: The Analytical Framework

The liquidation of an Italian subsidiary represents, from a purely financial standpoint, the least efficient mechanism for value extraction available to a foreign corporate group. Italian insolvency and commercial law impose a series of mandatory costs upon the exiting entity that, in aggregate, routinely erode the realisable value of the business to a degree that renders ordinary liquidation a choice of last resort rather than a first-order strategy. The academic literature on Italian M&A has devoted limited attention to the going-concern branch sale (cessione di ramo d’azienda) as an exit instrument, preferring to focus on share deals and formal insolvency procedures as the principal avenues of corporate restructuring.¹

This article addresses that lacuna. Its purpose is threefold: first, to provide a rigorous doctrinal analysis of the civil and fiscal law governing the cessione di ramo d’azienda; second, to situate the instrument within the broader landscape of available exit structures through a comparative analysis that encompasses the ordinary liquidation, the share deal, and the going-concern sale conducted within the framework of the Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza; and third, to examine in detail the drafting considerations and standard contractual provisions applicable to the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) through which such a transaction is implemented.

The analysis proceeds on the basis that the reader possesses a professional familiarity with Italian commercial and tax law. References to primary sources — legislative provisions, administrative circulars, and judicial decisions — are provided throughout. Where Italian law implements European Union directives, the relevant EU instruments are identified.

¹ Per un quadro generale delle strategie di exit nell’M&A italiano, si veda: F. Bonelli & M. Jaeger (eds), Acquisizioni di società e di pacchetti azionari di riferimento, Giuffrè, Milano, 2016; R. Pardolesi & R. Sassatelli (eds), I contratti di acquisizione di società e di aziende, Giuffrè, Milano, 2007. Sul ruolo della cessione di ramo d’azienda nelle operazioni di ristrutturazione, si veda: A. Toffoletto, “La cessione di azienda: profili civilistici e fiscali”, Riv. dott. comm., 2018, 3, pp. 499–527; G. D’Attorre, Manuale di diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, 3a ed., Giappichelli, Torino, 2024, pp. 312–328 (aggiornato al D.Lgs. 13 settembre 2024, n. 136).

II. The Juridical Nature of the Azienda and the Ramo d’Azienda under Italian Law

II.1 The Concept of Azienda under Article 2555 of the Civil Code

Article 2555 of the Italian Civil Code defines the azienda as “il complesso dei beni organizzati dall’imprenditore per l’esercizio dell’impresa” — the complex of assets organised by the entrepreneur for the conduct of the enterprise. This definition is deceptively simple. The doctrinal debate concerning its scope has been extensive: the prevailing view, endorsed by the Corte di Cassazione in a long line of decisions, treats the azienda as a universitas iuris, a legally recognised aggregate whose value and legal effects are not reducible to the sum of its component parts.² The consequence is that the transfer of an azienda is governed not merely by the rules applicable to the individual assets it contains, but by a distinct and partly autonomous legal regime.

Three structural elements emerge from the statutory definition and its judicial elaboration: (i) a plurality of assets (beni), whether tangible or intangible; (ii) an organisational link (organizzazione) among those assets, which must be objective and pre-existing rather than artificially constructed for the purposes of the transaction; and (iii) a functional destination (esercizio dell’impresa), meaning that the asset complex must be directed towards a productive end.³

II.2 The Ramo d’Azienda: Definitional Requirements and Judicial Evolution

The ramo d’azienda (business branch) is not expressly defined in the Civil Code, but has been elaborated through legislative references — most notably in Article 2112, paragraph 5, as amended by D.Lgs. 18 agosto 2015, n. 151, which defines it as “un’articolazione funzionalmente autonoma di un’impresa, preesistente come tale al trasferimento e che conserva nel trasferimento la propria identità” — and through a substantial body of judicial authority.

The Corte di Cassazione has consistently required the satisfaction of two cumulative conditions for a going-concern transfer to qualify as a cessione di ramo d’azienda. The first is functional autonomy (autonomia funzionale): the branch must constitute a distinct operational unit capable, at least in principle, of independent economic activity without requiring the integration of additional resources from the transferor.⁴ The second is the pre-existence of the organisational structure (preesistenza strutturale): the cluster of assets and human resources that constitute the branch must have been organised and operational as a coherent unit prior to the decision to sell, and not assembled ad hoc for the purpose of the transaction.⁵

This second requirement has been the subject of significant litigation in the employment law context, where the characterisation of a transfer as a cessione di ramo d’azienda triggers the mandatory application of Article 2112 of the Civil Code and, with it, the transfer of employment relationships to the acquirer. The risk of artificial branch creation — the so-called “scorporo fittizio” — has led the Corte di Cassazione to adopt an increasingly strict approach, requiring objective evidence of the pre-existing functional structure.⁶

² Cass. civ., Sez. I, 21 ottobre 1994, n. 8643; Cass. civ., Sez. I, 10 novembre 2010, n. 22863. In dottrina: P. Spada, Diritto commerciale, vol. I (Parte generale), Cedam, Padova, 2009, pp. 310–318; G. Ferrara jr. & F. Corsi, Gli imprenditori e le società, Giuffrè, Milano, 2021, pp. 225–232.

³ G. Auletta, “Azienda (diritto privato)”, in Enc. dir., vol. IV, Giuffrè, Milano, 1959, p. 671; V. Buonocore (dir.), Trattato di diritto commerciale, vol. I, Giappichelli, Torino, 2001, pp. 214 et seq.

⁴ Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 17 marzo 2016, n. 5701; Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 28 settembre 2018, n. 23349; Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 30 aprile 2024, n. 11528 (che ribadisce il principio consolidato per cui il ramo ceduto deve presentare autonomia organizzativa ed economica funzionale all’esercizio di un’attività produttiva). In ambito europeo, si veda Corte di Giustizia UE, 6 settembre 2011, C-108/10, Scattolon.

⁵ Cass. civ., Sez. V, 9 luglio 2019, n. 15067; Cass. civ., Sez. V, 14 febbraio 2020, n. 3823.

⁶ Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 4 dicembre 2015, n. 24718; Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 22 giugno 2021, n. 17752; Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 7 maggio 2024, n. 12297 (in tema di cessione di ramo d’azienda da impresa in amministrazione straordinaria: la tutela ex art. 2112 c.c. prevale ove l’operazione sia finalizzata alla continuazione dell’attività e non alla liquidazione; accordo sindacale di esclusione del dirigente dichiarato nullo). Sul rischio dello scorporo fittizio, si veda: S. Pacchi & S. Ambrosini, Diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2024, pp. 187–196.

III. Comparative Analysis of Italian Exit Structures

The election of an exit vehicle requires a systematic comparison across the principal legal and fiscal dimensions that determine net value realisation for the transferor. The following table juxtaposes ordinary liquidation, the cessione di ramo d’azienda, and the share deal across the criteria most relevant to a foreign corporate group.

Sources: D.P.R. 26 ottobre 1972, n. 633 (IVA); D.P.R. 26 aprile 1986, n. 131 (Imposta di Registro); art. 2112 c.c.; art. 2560 c.c.; Circolare AdE 9/E/2021; D.P.R. 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917 (TUIR), art. 86 (plusvalenze). Rates confirmed as at April 2026.

III.1 Illustrative Quantification

The following hypothetical illustrates the financial consequences of the structural differences identified above. The scenario involves a foreign-owned Italian manufacturing entity with gross asset book value of €8,000,000, accrued TFR of €900,000, active contract termination exposure of €350,000, and outstanding Industria 4.0 tax credit recapture risk of €800,000.

Assumptions: Going-concern valuation at 90% of book value for tangibles plus avviamento. Registration tax calculated at 3% on €8,520,000 total consideration. All figures are illustrative and do not constitute professional advice.

⁷ L’approccio quantitativo ai confronti tra strutture di exit è esaminato in: C. Pedersoli, “La valorizzazione dell’azienda in crisi: profili civilistici e fiscali”, in Rivista delle società, 2020, pp. 1201–1236; KPMG, M&A Purchase Price Mechanisms in Europe, Survey 2022.

IV. The Civil Law Regime of the Cessione di Ramo d’Azienda

IV.1 Automatic Succession into Contracts: Article 2558

Article 2558 of the Civil Code provides that, unless otherwise agreed, the acquirer succeeds to the contracts entered into for the operation of the transferred business that are not of a personal nature. This automatic succession (successione ex lege) operates without the requirement for counterparty consent, and without the application of the contractual assignment provisions of Article 1406 and following, which would ordinarily require the contracting third party’s agreement.⁸

The practical consequence is the elimination of termination costs ordinarily associated with liquidation: lease agreements, supply contracts, software licences, and service agreements transfer to the acquirer as a matter of law. The third party is, however, entitled to withdraw from the contract within three months of becoming aware of the transfer, if just cause exists (giusta causa) — a right that does not, in practice, significantly diminish the value of automatic succession where the transferee is creditworthy.

Where consent to assignment is contractually required (as is common in franchise agreements, licences granted intuitu personae, and certain financial contracts), the parties must plan for a structured consent process and consider the allocation of risk in the event that consent is refused. The failure to obtain consent does not invalidate the transfer but may expose the seller to liability towards the non-consenting counterparty.

IV.2 Employment Relationships: Article 2112 and the Acquired Rights Framework

Article 2112 of the Civil Code, as interpreted in light of Directive 2001/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,⁹ mandates the automatic transfer of all employment relationships of employees assigned to the transferred branch, with full preservation of the seniority, remuneration, and other contractual terms accrued prior to the transfer.

The key financial consequence for the exiting group is the migration of the accrued TFR (Trattamento di Fine Rapporto) liability to the acquirer’s balance sheet. The TFR — a mandatory deferred compensation provision governed by Article 2120 of the Civil Code and by L. 29 maggio 1982, n. 297 — accrues at a rate of approximately 6.91% of annual gross remuneration and represents a substantial balance sheet obligation for labour-intensive businesses. Its transfer eliminates the corresponding cash requirement that would arise upon individual terminations in a liquidation scenario.¹⁰

The mandatory nature of Article 2112 is reinforced by Article 47 of L. 29 dicembre 1990, n. 428 (as amended by D.Lgs. 2 febbraio 2001, n. 18, implementing Directive 98/50/EC), which requires the transferor and transferee to provide written notice of the planned transfer to trade union representatives (RSA or RSU) and, where applicable, to sectoral or national trade union organisations, no fewer than 25 days prior to the transfer date, for the purposes of mandatory information and consultation. Failure to comply does not affect the validity of the transfer itself but may give rise to claims under Article 28 of L. 20 maggio 1970, n. 300 (Statuto dei Lavoratori) and to regulatory sanctions.¹¹

IV.3 Creditor Protections: Article 2560

Article 2560 of the Civil Code establishes that the acquirer of a business is jointly and severally liable with the transferor for business debts that are evidenced in the mandatory accounting records (libri contabili obbligatori) at the time of the transfer. The scope of this provision has been the subject of significant judicial elaboration: the Corte di Cassazione has held that “evidenced” encompasses debts that a diligent examination of the books would have disclosed, not merely those explicitly itemised in the transfer documentation.¹²

The practical consequence for the acquirer is that contractual exclusions of liability, while binding between the parties as a matter of indemnification, are unenforceable against the transferor’s creditors. The standard drafting response is a combination of: (a) a comprehensive excluded liabilities schedule in the SPA; (b) a specific seller indemnification obligation of unlimited duration for pre-closing liabilities; and (c) representations and warranties as to the completeness and accuracy of the seller’s mandatory accounting records, often supported by warranty and indemnity insurance.

IV.4 Non-Competition: Article 2557

Article 2557 of the Civil Code imposes on the transferor a statutory non-competition obligation for a period of five years from the transfer: the seller may not initiate a new enterprise that, having regard to the object, location, and customer base of the transferred business, could divert the transferred clientele. This obligation is a non-derogable minimum — any contractual reduction below the five-year threshold or the statutory scope is void — but the parties may extend its geographic scope or duration subject to the general constraints of Article 2596, which limits non-competition agreements to a maximum of five years.¹³

⁸ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 5 maggio 2009, n. 10332; in dottrina: G. Gabrielli, “La successione nel contratto”, in Riv. dir. civ., 1997, I, p. 277. Sul rapporto tra art. 2558 e le regole generali della cessione del contratto (artt. 1406–1410 c.c.), si veda F. Galgano, Trattato di diritto commerciale, vol. II, Cedam, Padova, 2004, pp. 88 et seq.

⁹ Direttiva 2001/23/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, 12 marzo 2001, GUCE L 82/16. Per l’interpretazione in chiave europea dell’art. 2112 c.c., si veda: Corte di Giustizia UE, 15 dicembre 2005, C-232/04 e C-233/04, Güney-Görres e Demir; Corte di Giustizia UE, 20 gennaio 2011, C-463/09, CLECE SA.

¹⁰ Sul TFR e il suo trattamento nella cessione d’azienda, si veda: M. Persiani, Diritto del lavoro, Cedam, Padova, 2020, pp. 412–426; Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 11 giugno 2019, n. 15669.

¹¹ Cass. civ., Sez. Lav., 3 febbraio 2016, n. 2166; Trib. Milano, 14 marzo 2018, in Riv. it. dir. lav., 2018, II, p. 548.

¹² Cass. civ., Sez. I, 28 febbraio 2018, n. 4720; Cass. civ., Sez. I, 12 maggio 2015, n. 9695. Per il profilo fiscale della qualificazione del complesso ceduto (distinzione tra cessione di singoli beni e cessione di ramo ai fini IVA e registro), si veda ora Cass. civ., Sez. V, 9 aprile 2024, n. 9536 (non è necessario trasferire tutti i beni: è sufficiente che il complesso ceduto conservi un’attitudine all’esercizio d’impresa).

¹³ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 7 marzo 2013, n. 5671; P.G. Marchetti, “Clausole di non concorrenza nei contratti di cessione d’azienda”, Riv. soc., 2005, II, pp. 1422 et seq.

V. The Fiscal Regime of the Cessione di Ramo d’Azienda

V.1 Value Added Tax

The cessione di azienda or di ramo d’azienda is excluded from the scope of value added tax by Article 2, co. 3, lett. b) of D.P.R. 26 ottobre 1972, n. 633, which provides that transfers of businesses and business branches do not constitute, for VAT purposes, a supply of goods. This exclusion implements Article 19 of Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive), under which Member States may treat the transfer of a totality of assets, or a part thereof, as a non-supply for VAT purposes.¹⁴ The rationale is one of fiscal neutrality: the transferee is treated as the successor to the transferor for VAT purposes and continues, rather than commences, the taxable activity.

The VAT exemption constitutes a significant financial advantage over the disposal of individual assets in a liquidation scenario, where each sale is subject to VAT at the standard rate of 22% (or reduced rates where applicable). Given that VAT recovery in a liquidation context is often delayed or structurally impaired, the exemption avoids the creation of a temporary liquidity deficit at precisely the moment when the exiting group’s resources are most constrained.

V.2 Imposta di Registro

In the absence of VAT, the cessione di ramo d’azienda is subject to proportional imposta di registro pursuant to the Tariffa allegata al D.P.R. 26 aprile 1986, n. 131 (Testo Unico dell’Imposta di Registro, hereinafter “TUR”). The applicable rate is 3% of the transfer consideration, pursuant to Article 2 of the Tariffa (as confirmed by the Agenzia delle Entrate in Circolare 18/E/2013 and subsequent practice).¹⁵ Where the transferred assets include real property, the specific cadastral and mortgage taxes applicable to real estate transfers (imposta ipotecaria and imposta catastale) are levied in addition to the 3% base rate.

The agreement must be submitted for registration at the Agenzia delle Entrate within 30 days of execution (20 days where executed before a notary), with the notary acting as mandatario for the registration obligation in the case of a notarial deed.

V.3 Capital Gains Taxation

Capital gains realised by the transferor upon the cessione di ramo d’azienda are taxable as plusvalenze patrimoniali under Article 86 of the TUIR (D.P.R. 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917). The taxable gain is determined as the difference between the agreed transfer price and the net book value (valore fiscalmente riconosciuto) of the transferred assets and liabilities. For assets held for more than three fiscal years, the seller may elect to spread the gain in equal instalments over a maximum of five fiscal years (rateizzazione), pursuant to Article 86, co. 4, TUIR, which provides a material deferral benefit.¹⁶

The purchase price allocation between tangible assets, intangible assets, and avviamento (goodwill) has direct fiscal consequences for both parties: the buyer’s future amortisation deductions depend on the values attributed to each category of asset, while the seller’s gain composition affects the applicable tax treatment and the enforceability of the rateizzazione election. The Agenzia delle Entrate scrutinises price allocations that appear to misrepresent the economic substance of the transaction.

V.4 The Industria 4.0 and 5.0 Tax Credit Regime: Preservation upon Transfer

The investment tax credit (credito d’imposta per beni strumentali) introduced under the Industria 4.0 framework (L. 11 dicembre 2016, n. 232 and subsequent budget laws) and its successor programme, Industria 5.0 (D.L. 2 marzo 2024, n. 19, converted by L. 29 aprile 2024, n. 56), are subject to clawback provisions that are triggered by the disposal of qualifying assets before the expiry of the minimum holding period — ordinarily five years for tangible assets classified as beni strumentali materiali, and three years for intangible assets.¹⁷

In a liquidation scenario, the disposal of qualifying assets individually activates the recapture mechanism automatically, converting a previously recognised tax asset into an immediate liability comprising the recaptured credit plus interest and, where applicable, penalties. This effect is particularly damaging for capital-intensive manufacturing operations that have made substantial investments in qualifying technologies.

The critical exception, confirmed by the Agenzia delle Entrate in Circolare 9/E/2021 and in Risposta ad interpello n. 376/2021, is that the transfer of qualifying assets as part of a cessione di ramo d’azienda does not trigger the clawback provisions. The acquirer succeeds to the remaining credit utilisation schedule and may continue to offset the credits against its own IRES and IRAP liability over the residual utilisation period.¹⁸

Practical caveat on credit transferability
While the non-application of clawback upon transfer in a ramo d’azienda context is settled by administrative practice, the acquirer’s utilisation of the inherited credits is subject to residual uncertainty: (i) the acquirer must demonstrate that the qualifying assets continue to be used for the purposes for which the credit was originally granted; (ii) disclosure obligations to the Agenzia delle Entrate may be required; and (iii) the quantum and validity of the credits are subject to audit risk, particularly where the original investment documentation maintained by the transferor is incomplete. The standard drafting response is a specific tax warranty package in the SPA supplemented, in transactions of sufficient size, by W&I insurance coverage.

V.5 Anti-Avoidance: The Post-2017 Statutory Framework

The anti-avoidance analysis applicable to the cessione di ramo d’azienda underwent a material transformation following the amendments introduced by Article 1, co. 87–88, L. 27 dicembre 2017, n. 205, subsequently consolidated by L. 30 dicembre 2018, n. 145, which substantially restricted the scope of Article 20 of the TUR as a tool for transaction reclassification.

Prior to the 2017 reform, the Agenzia delle Entrate routinely invoked Article 20 TUR to reclassify, for registration tax purposes, what was formally documented as a series of separate asset sales into a unitary transfer of a business branch, thereby applying the proportional 3% rate to the aggregate consideration. The 2017 reform confined the Article 20 analysis to the legal effects of the single deed presented for registration, prohibiting tax authorities from taking into account linked transactions or the broader economic context.

Following the reform, reclassification of connected transactions — including the artificial fragmentation of a branch sale into multiple asset sales — now requires recourse to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) codified in Article 10-bis of L. 27 luglio 2000, n. 212 (Statuto del Contribuente). The GAAR imposes materially higher procedural requirements on the administration: the absence of economic substance must be demonstrated, the taxpayer must be granted the right to be heard, and the burden of proof lies with the tax authority.¹⁹ The Corte di Cassazione has confirmed this interpretive framework in several decisions subsequent to the 2017 reform.²⁰

¹⁴ Direttiva 2006/112/CE del Consiglio, 28 novembre 2006, relativa al sistema comune d’imposta sul valore aggiunto, GUUE L 347/1, art. 19. Corte di Giustizia UE, 27 novembre 2003, C-497/01, Zita Modes Sàrl, in punto di interpretazione dell’esclusione dal campo IVA dei trasferimenti d’azienda.

¹⁵ Agenzia delle Entrate, Circolare 18/E del 29 maggio 2013; Risoluzione 302/E del 20 ottobre 2008. Sul regime dell’imposta di registro nella cessione d’azienda, si veda: F. Tesauro, Istituzioni di diritto tributario, vol. II (Parte speciale), Utet, Torino, 2020, pp. 288–296.

¹⁶ Cass. civ., Sez. V, 18 marzo 2021, n. 7600 (sulla determinazione della plusvalenza nella cessione d’azienda); Cass. civ., Sez. V, n. 16655/2024 (in materia di accertamento del valore dell’avviamento nella cessione di ramo d’azienda: il metodo presuntivo dell’Agenzia delle Entrate è legittimo; l’onere di provare che la stima è inferiore incombe sul contribuente). In dottrina: G. Zizzo, “La plusvalenza nella cessione di azienda tra diritto civile e diritto tributario”, Riv. dir. trib., 2017, I, pp. 345–378.

¹⁷ Agenzia delle Entrate, Circolare 4/E del 30 marzo 2017; Circolare 9/E del 23 luglio 2021, par. 4.2 (recapture provisions); D.L. 29 marzo 2024, n. 39 (conv. L. 23 maggio 2024, n. 67), art. 6, che ha introdotto l’obbligo di comunicazione preventiva al MIMIT ai fini della fruizione dei crediti Transizione 4.0; L. 30 dicembre 2024, n. 207 (Legge di bilancio 2025), art. 1, co. 445–448, che ha abrogato il credito d’imposta per beni immateriali 4.0 e ha fissato un tetto di spesa di 2,2 miliardi per i beni materiali; Decreto Direttoriale MIMIT 15 maggio 2025 (modalità operative e modello di comunicazione tramite GSE).

¹⁸ Agenzia delle Entrate, Risposta ad interpello n. 376 del 9 giugno 2021; Risposta ad interpello n. 425 del 7 luglio 2021 (cessione di beni 4.0 nell’ambito di operazione straordinaria).

¹⁹ Sul sistema del GAAR ex art. 10-bis L. 212/2000, si veda: G. Fransoni, “Note intorno al concetto di abuso del diritto nella legge n. 212 del 2000”, Riv. dir. trib., 2016, I, pp. 909–948; M. Beghin, “La clausola generale antiabuso tra certezza del diritto e flessibilità del sistema”, Corriere tributario, 2016, 25, pp. 1921–1930.

²⁰ Cass. civ., Sez. V, 14 gennaio 2021, n. 2007; Cass. civ., Sez. V, 30 marzo 2022, n. 10272; Cass. civ., Sez. V, 13 giugno 2024, n. 16544 (conferimento di ramo d’azienda seguito da cessione di quote: non riqualificabile come cessione d’azienda ai fini del registro sulla base della nuova formulazione dell’art. 20 TUR; la tassazione si basa sulla natura giuridica intrinseca del singolo atto, senza considerare atti collegati o elementi extra-testuali). In dottrina: F. Pistolesi, “Art. 20 TUR e art. 10-bis Statuto del contribuente: due strumenti complementari o alternativi?”, GT – Rivista di giurisprudenza tributaria, 2022, 4, pp. 289–302.

VI. Asset Deals within the Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza: Judicial Oversight and the Discharge of Liabilities

VI.1 Conceptual Framework: The Going-Concern Sale as a Crisis Resolution Tool

The Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza (D.Lgs. 12 gennaio 2019, n. 14, hereinafter “CCII”), which came into force in its definitive form on 15 July 2022 following the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 (the “Restructuring Directive”),²¹ introduces a comprehensive framework for the management of corporate distress that significantly expands the range of instruments available for the going-concern transfer of a business or business branch. The CCII pursues, as one of its central policy objectives, the preservation of the productive capacity of enterprises in financial difficulty and the maximisation of value recovery for creditors — objectives that are structurally better served by a going-concern transfer than by piecemeal liquidation.²²

The CCII provides for going-concern asset transfers in at least three distinct procedural contexts: the Composizione Negoziata della Crisi (CNC), introduced by D.L. 24 agosto 2021, n. 118 and subsequently incorporated into the CCII (artt. 12–25-bis CCII); the concordato preventivo (artt. 84–120 CCII), including its continuity variant (concordato in continuità aziendale) and the liquidating variant with going-concern components; and the liquidazione giudiziale (artt. 121–295 CCII), where the business or branch may be transferred as a going concern within the liquidation process under Article 217 CCII. A further instrument of particular practical relevance is the piano di risanamento attestato (art. 56 CCII), the certified recovery plan, which while extra-judicial provides a degree of judicial proximity through the attestation process.

VI.2 The Composizione Negoziata della Crisi

The CNC procedure, introduced as an emergency measure in 2021 and stabilised in the CCII, provides a confidential, expert-assisted negotiation framework in which a debtor in a state of financial imbalance or impending crisis engages with an independent expert (esperto indipendente) appointed by the Camera di Commercio to facilitate negotiations with creditors and, where appropriate, prospective acquirers.²³

The relevance of the CNC for asset deal transactions lies principally in two mechanisms. First, Article 18 CCII provides for the possibility of obtaining from the Tribunale authorisation to complete urgent transactions — including the sale of specific assets or the transfer of a business branch — during the CNC procedure, with the protection of court oversight without the rigidity of formal insolvency proceedings. Second, Article 22 CCII, inserted by D.Lgs. 13 settembre 2024, n. 136 (implementing the Restructuring Directive) in its revised form, permits the debtor to apply for a “misura protettiva” (automatic stay) during the CNC negotiation period, which stays enforcement actions by creditors and provides a protected environment within which the asset sale can be structured and documented without the pressure of individual enforcement.

From a liability perspective, the CNC framework does not, in itself, provide for the discharge of the seller’s pre-existing liabilities: absent a formal insolvency proceeding or a homologated plan, the general rules of civil law on joint liability (including Article 2560) continue to apply. This limitation distinguishes the CNC from the more protective frameworks of the concordato preventivo and the liquidazione giudiziale, examined below.

VI.3 The Concordato Preventivo and the Going-Concern Transfer

The concordato preventivo (artt. 84–120 CCII) is a judicial restructuring procedure in which the debtor proposes to its creditors a plan for the satisfaction of their claims, subject to homologation by the Tribunale. Under the CCII, the concordato may take the form of a “concordato in continuità aziendale” (Article 84, co. 1, CCII), where the business continues to operate in the hands of the debtor or is transferred to a third party, or a liquidating concordato (Article 84, co. 2), where the assets are sold with the proceeds distributed to creditors.²⁴

The going-concern transfer of a business branch within a concordato preventivo produces important effects that distinguish it from a purely contractual cessione di ramo d’azienda. Most significantly, the transfer operates within a framework of judicial oversight: the plan and the proposed transfer must be approved by a qualified majority of creditors (pursuant to Article 109 CCII) and homologated by the Tribunale, which verifies the feasibility of the plan and the compliance of the proposed satisfaction with the absolute priority rule (regola della priorità assoluta) or, where the creditors so agree, the relative priority rule (Article 112 CCII).²⁵

The principal advantage of the concordato framework for the acquirer of a business branch is the discharge (esdebitazione) of the seller’s pre-existing liabilities not included in the plan. Upon homologation of the concordato, the debtor is discharged from the unsatisfied portion of its obligations, and the acquirer of the transferred branch is not exposed to the joint liability mechanism of Article 2560 in respect of debts discharged in the procedure — a fundamental departure from the ordinary civil law rules and a decisive advantage for a buyer seeking a clean acquisition.²⁶

The employment treatment within a concordato with going-concern transfer follows Article 2112 of the Civil Code in its standard application, subject to the possibility of agreeing modified conditions with trade union representatives during the procedure pursuant to Article 47 of L. 428/1990 — a negotiating flexibility that is not available in ordinary out-of-court transfers.

VI.4 The Liquidazione Giudiziale: Transfer as Going Concern under Article 217 CCII

The liquidazione giudiziale (successor to the fallimento under the Legge Fallimentare, R.D. 16 marzo 1942, n. 267) provides the most robust framework for liability discharge in a going-concern transfer. Under Article 217 CCII, the curatore (liquidator) may sell the business or business branch as a going concern in a competitive procedure overseen by the Tribunale, with the proceeds distributed to creditors in accordance with the priority rules of the CCII.²⁷

The going-concern sale in liquidazione giudiziale operates as a clean acquisition for the buyer: the principle of purgazione dei vincoli — the discharge of pre-existing encumbrances upon judicial sale — applies, and the buyer takes the assets free of the debts and liabilities of the insolvent seller, save for specific exceptions (most notably the preferential treatment of employee claims and the continuation of collective agreements until replaced). The employment transfer provisions of Article 2112 continue to apply, but the Tribunale may authorise modified conditions where necessary for the viability of the transfer.²⁸

The competitive procedure mandated by Article 217 CCII requires the curatore to publish a notice of the proposed transfer, to solicit competitive offers, and to conduct the sale in a manner that maximises value for creditors. The Tribunale supervises the procedure and approves the sale. This framework provides the buyer with a degree of certainty regarding title and liability exposure that is unmatched in out-of-court transactions, and reduces, though does not eliminate, post-acquisition litigation risk from creditors of the insolvent estate.

VI.5 The Piano di Risanamento Attestato: Article 56 CCII

The piano di risanamento attestato (art. 56 CCII) is a certified recovery plan prepared by the debtor and attested by an independent professional expert (attestatore) who verifies the reasonableness and feasibility of the plan, including any asset disposals contemplated therein. While the piano di risanamento is an extra-judicial instrument — it does not require judicial homologation and does not produce automatic stays or discharge effects — it confers important legal benefits on transactions executed in its context.²⁹

Most significantly, acts and payments performed in execution of an attested recovery plan that has been published in the Registro delle Imprese are exempt from clawback (azione revocatoria) pursuant to Article 166, co. 3, lett. d) CCII. This exemption, which had its precursor in Article 67, co. 3, lett. d) of the Legge Fallimentare, means that a cessione di ramo d’azienda carried out pursuant to a published attested plan is not susceptible to revocation in subsequent insolvency proceedings, provided the attestation meets the substantive requirements of independence and reasonableness.³⁰

The attestatore’s role has been progressively strengthened under the CCII: Article 56, co. 2 requires the attestatore to be an independent professional (typically a dottore commercialista with the requisite statutory qualifications) who has no relationship with the debtor or its management that could compromise independence. The attestation report must address specifically the feasibility of the plan, the reasonableness of the underlying financial projections, and the capability of the plan to restore the debtor’s financial equilibrium within a defined horizon.

VI.6 Tax Treatment of Asset Deals under the CCII Framework

Asset deals conducted within the CCII framework benefit from a specific fiscal regime that departs in several respects from the ordinary rules applicable to going-concern transfers. Under Article 86, co. 5, TUIR, capital gains arising from the transfer of assets in the context of a liquidazione giudiziale or concordato preventivo are, in certain circumstances, excluded from the taxable income of the insolvent estate, reflecting the broader principle that fiscal claims participate in the procedure as ordinary creditors.³¹

The registration tax treatment of asset transfers within insolvency proceedings is governed by Article 8-bis of the Tariffa allegata al TUR, which provides for a fixed registration tax of €200 on transfers of assets within liquidazione giudiziale, rather than the proportional 3% rate applicable to ordinary going-concern transfers. This represents a material fiscal advantage for transactions of significant value, as the registration tax saving can amount to hundreds of thousands of euros on large-scale transfers.³²

The Industria 4.0/5.0 credit framework presents additional complexity in insolvency contexts: the Agenzia delle Entrate has not issued comprehensive guidance on whether the clawback exemption confirmed for ordinary cessioni di ramo d’azienda extends without qualification to transfers within insolvency proceedings, and the interaction with the rules on credit utilisation by the acquiring entity requires careful structuring and, in transactions of material size, advance ruling (interpello) with the Agenzia delle Entrate.

²¹ Direttiva (UE) 2019/1023 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, 20 giugno 2019, riguardante i quadri di ristrutturazione preventiva, l’esdebitazione e le interdizioni e le misure volte ad aumentare l’efficacia delle procedure di ristrutturazione, insolvenza ed esdebitazione, GUUE L 172/18.

²² Sul CCII e i suoi obiettivi di politica del diritto, si veda: M. Fabiani, “Il sistema e i principi del diritto della crisi d’impresa”, dirittodellacrisi.it, 2024; G. D’Attorre, Manuale di diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, 3a ed. (aggiornata al D.Lgs. 136/2024, cd. correttivo ter), Giappichelli, Torino, 2024; S. Pacchi & S. Ambrosini, Diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2024; A. Nigro & D. Vattermoli, Diritto della crisi delle imprese, Il Mulino, Bologna, ultima edizione.

²³ Sulla Composizione Negoziata della Crisi e le modifiche del correttivo ter, si veda: S. Ambrosini, “La ‘miniriforma’ del 2021 e gli sviluppi successivi”, Dir. fall., 2022, I, pp. 901 et seq.; M. Spiotta, “Il CCII (ri)corretto: uno sguardo d’insieme”, Judicium, 18 settembre 2024; L. Panzani, “Lo schema di decreto correttivo del codice della crisi. Prime considerazioni”, dirittodellacrisi.it, 17 luglio 2024; N. De Luca & L. Sicignano, “Il terzo correttivo al codice della crisi (parte prima)”, Foro it., 2024, pp. 257 et seq.; Ministero della Giustizia, Circolare 28 settembre 2021 (istruzioni operative per la CNC).

²⁴ Sul concordato preventivo nel CCII dopo il correttivo ter, si veda: I. Pagni & M. Fabiani, “Uno sguardo sulle modifiche al Codice della crisi”, relazione al Convegno di Pietrasanta, 2024; M. Arato, “Il discrimen tra concordato preventivo liquidatorio e in continuità”, Ristrutturazioni Aziendali, 2025, pp. 3–7; Cass. civ., Sez. I, 6 agosto 2024, n. 22169 (nel concordato in continuità, il surplus generato dalla prosecuzione non è liberamente distribuibile e soggiace al divieto di alterazione delle cause legittime di prelazione); Cass. civ., Sez. I, 2 ottobre 2024, n. 25919 (in continuità, è inammissibile la proposta che non prefiguri un’utilità economicamente valutabile per i chirografari).

²⁵ La regola della priorità assoluta e le deroghe nel CCII dopo D.Lgs. 136/2024: F. Guerrera, “La regola di priorità assoluta nel CCII: fondamento e deroghe”, Rivista delle società, 2022, II, pp. 823–867; Corte d’appello di Brescia, 17 novembre 2024 (conf. Trib. Mantova, 14 marzo 2024): ai fini dell’art. 112, co. 2, lett. d) CCII, le risorse esterne non consistono nel valore eccedente quello di liquidazione; Trib. Milano, 25 gennaio 2023 (prima applicazione della regola nel CCII post-riforma).

²⁶ Sulla discharge nel concordato preventivo con cessione del ramo d’azienda: Cass. civ., Sez. I, 15 giugno 2018, n. 15893; Assonime, Rassegna di giurisprudenza. Crisi d’impresa, n. 3/2024 (commento alle più recenti applicazioni giurisprudenziali del CCII in materia di omologazione e cessione); D. Finardi, “I soci nel concordato in continuità e le possibili novità del correttivo 2024”, IUS Crisi d’impresa, 4 giugno 2024.

²⁷ Sulla vendita dell’azienda in liquidazione giudiziale nel CCII, si veda: G. D’Attorre, op. cit., 2024, pp. 498–522; Corte Suprema di Cassazione – Ufficio del Massimario e del Ruolo, Relazione tematica n. 10/2025 (analisi delle prime applicazioni del CCII in materia di liquidazione giudiziale e vendita dell’azienda, con rassegna delle decisioni 2023–2024); art. 217, co. 1–5, CCII.

²⁸ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 22 marzo 2019, n. 8110 (sulla sopravvivenza dell’art. 2112 nella vendita fallimentare); sul punto si veda anche: S. Bariatti, “Il trasferimento d’azienda nelle procedure concorsuali”, Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro, 2021, I, pp. 44–78.

²⁹ Sul piano di risanamento attestato nel CCII e la sua funzione nel contesto del correttivo ter: L. Stanghellini, “Il piano di risanamento attestato: natura, effetti e libertà di forma”, Fallimento, 2023, 2, pp. 147–168; Ristrutturazioni Aziendali, n. 742 (2025) (su un caso applicativo di piano attestato con cessione di ramo d’azienda nell’ambito del CCII dopo il correttivo ter, inclusa l’interazione con la CNC); D.Lgs. 13 settembre 2024, n. 136, art. 56 CCII nella versione vigente.

³⁰ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 14 febbraio 2020, n. 3828 (sulla revocatoria e i piani attestati); Trib. Verona, 26 febbraio 2025, Est. Attanasio (in materia di strumenti di concordato di gruppo: sussiste il requisito oggettivo ex art. 284, co. 4, CCII in presenza di un contratto di affitto d’azienda funzionale alla fusione per incorporazione mediante piano attestato di risanamento).

³¹ Sul trattamento fiscale delle plusvalenze nelle procedure concorsuali, si veda: Agenzia delle Entrate, Circolare 26/E del 1 agosto 2016; G. Zizzo, “Il reddito d’impresa nelle procedure concorsuali”, Riv. dir. trib., 2019, I, pp. 495–531.

³² Agenzia delle Entrate, Risoluzione 28/E del 17 marzo 2017 (imposta di registro nella liquidazione giudiziale); in dottrina: F. Tesauro, Istituzioni di diritto tributario, vol. II, cit., pp. 302–308.

VII. The Legal Framework of the Asset Deal: Drafting Considerations and Standard Contractual Provisions

VII.1 The SPA as Allocative Instrument

The sale and purchase agreement (contratto di cessione di azienda o di ramo d’azienda) operates, within the space left by the mandatory statutory provisions, as a complex allocative mechanism: it distributes risk between the parties, determines the economic equilibrium of the transaction, and operationalises the statutory framework through bespoke provisions adapted to the specific asset pool and commercial context.³³ From a comparative-law perspective, the Italian asset deal SPA shares a common architecture with its equivalents in other civil law jurisdictions — notably the French cession de fonds de commerce and the German Unternehmenskauf im Wege des asset deals — while retaining characteristics peculiar to the Italian legal and fiscal environment.³⁴

VII.2 Preliminary Instruments: Letter of Intent and Exclusivity

Prior to the execution of the definitive SPA, asset deal transactions are typically preceded by a letter of intent (lettera di intenti) or memorandum of understanding, which crystallises the commercial agreement in principle without binding the parties on the merits. Italian law admits pre-contractual liability under Article 1337 of the Civil Code where a party withdraws from advanced negotiations in bad faith having induced reliance by the counterparty — a principle confirmed in the consistent jurisprudence of the Corte di Cassazione.³⁵

Exclusivity agreements (patti di esclusiva), whether free-standing or embedded in the letter of intent, confer on the prospective acquirer a protected negotiation period during which the seller undertakes not to engage with competing bidders. Their enforceability turns on their characterisation as unilateral undertakings (promesse unilaterali) under Article 1987 of the Civil Code or, less commonly, as preliminary contracts (contratti preliminari). Break-fee provisions, increasingly common in contested auction processes, are analysed as liquidated damages clauses under Article 1382 of the Civil Code and are enforceable, subject to the court’s power of equitable reduction under Article 1384.

VII.3 Perimeter of the Transfer: Schedules and Excluded Assets

The central operative section of the SPA defines with precision the perimetro della cessione through a series of annexed schedules: (i) an inventory of tangible assets (Schedule A), itemising machinery, equipment, vehicles, and fixtures by reference to book value and technical condition; (ii) a schedule of intellectual property and intangible assets (Schedule B), encompassing patents, trademarks, software licences, know-how, and customer lists; (iii) a schedule of assigned contracts (Schedule C), identifying agreements transferring automatically under Article 2558 and those requiring counterparty consent; (iv) a schedule of transferred employees (Schedule D); and (v) an excluded assets and liabilities schedule (Schedule E).³⁶

The drafting of Schedule E is particularly consequential given the scope of the joint liability regime under Article 2560. As noted above, Italian courts have interpreted “evidenced in the books” broadly to encompass debts that a diligent examination would have disclosed. The excluded liabilities schedule must therefore be calibrated against a thorough review of the seller’s mandatory accounting records, supplemented by specific indemnification obligations and representations as to their completeness.

VII.4 Purchase Price Mechanisms

Two principal price mechanisms are employed in Italian asset deal practice. Under the locked-box model, the price is fixed by reference to a historical balance sheet date, with the seller warranting against value leakage in the interim period. Under the completion accounts model, a provisional price is adjusted post-closing by reference to the actual net working capital, net debt, or other agreed financial metrics as at closing. Each model presents specific drafting challenges in the Italian context: the locked-box model requires careful definition of permitted leakage (e.g., ordinary course remuneration and dividends), while the completion accounts model requires precise accounting policy definitions and a robust dispute resolution mechanism for post-closing disagreements on the accounts.³⁷

VII.5 Representations and Warranties

The representations and warranties package (dichiarazioni e garanzie) constitutes the epistemological core of the SPA, allocating the risk of undisclosed defects and historical liabilities. A standard Italian asset deal warranty package addresses the following categories:

The negotiation of knowledge qualifiers is a central battleground: sellers typically press for “best knowledge” qualifications limited to the actual knowledge of named individuals, while buyers seek objective knowability standards. Italian courts apply Article 1375 of the Civil Code (good faith in contract performance) to resolve ambiguities in the scope of knowledge-qualified representations, and have shown increasing willingness to enforce sophisticated knowledge qualifiers between professional counterparties.³⁸

VII.6 Disclosure and the Data Room

The disclosure letter (lettera di disclosure), executed simultaneously with or immediately prior to the SPA, qualifies the seller’s representations by reference to matters specifically disclosed in the data room. The standard of disclosure — specific (requiring itemised disclosure of each exception) versus general (permitting disclosure by reference to the entirety of the data room contents) — is heavily negotiated and has direct consequences for the seller’s warranty exposure. Italian courts have held that a generalised data room reference is insufficient to discharge the disclosure obligation where the relevant information is embedded in voluminous materials that a reasonable buyer could not be expected to have examined.³⁹

VII.7 Indemnification Regime

The indemnification regime (manleva o indennizzo) addresses: (i) de minimis thresholds, below which individual claims are non-cognisable; (ii) basket or deductible provisions (franchigie), with a distinction between first-euro baskets and tipping baskets; (iii) aggregate liability caps, typically expressed as a percentage of the purchase price and ranging from 20% to 100% depending on the nature of the warranty; (iv) survival periods (durata delle garanzie), typically 18–36 months for general warranties and up to seven years for tax and environmental representations; and (v) the duty to mitigate under Article 1227 of the Civil Code.⁴⁰

The growing adoption of warranty and indemnity (W&I) insurance in Italian M&A transactions — now standard in private equity deals above €50M enterprise value and expanding into the mid-market — has materially affected the negotiation dynamics: seller liability caps are increasingly set at a nominal level (“nil seller liability”), with buyer-side W&I policies providing the substantive protection. Insurers’ underwriting requirements have, in turn, influenced the standard and depth of due diligence conducted in Italian transactions.⁴¹

VII.8 Closing Mechanics and Post-Closing Obligations

The SPA must be executed before a notary (atto notarile) where the transferred assets include real property, registered intellectual property, or other assets subject to mandatory registration. In the absence of such assets, a private deed authenticated by a notary (scrittura privata autenticata) is sufficient. The deed is subject to registration with the Agenzia delle Entrate within 20 days (notarial deed) or 30 days (private deed) of execution.

Post-closing obligations typically addressed in the SPA include: transitional services agreements (TSA) for the provision of specified support services by the seller for a defined period; formal recordal of IP assignments with the UIBM; customer and supplier notification protocols; and the management of warranty claims on transferred inventory or product liability arising from pre-closing production.

³³ F. Galgano, Il contratto, Cedam, Padova, 2011, pp. 631 et seq.; V. Roppo, Il contratto, Giuffrè, Milano, 2011, pp. 498–506.

³⁴ Per un’analisi comparatistica, si veda: K.J. Hopt & H. Merkt (eds), Comparative Corporate Governance, Oxford University Press, 2021; G. Rossi, “Il trasferimento d’azienda nell’esperienza comparatistica”, Riv. soc., 2014, I, p. 1.

³⁵ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 14 giugno 1999, n. 5830; C.M. Bianca, Diritto civile, vol. III (Il contratto), Giuffrè, Milano, 2019, pp. 157–168.

³⁶ A. Toffoletto, “La cessione di azienda: profili civilistici e fiscali”, cit., pp. 508–514; G. Ferrara jr. & F. Corsi, Gli imprenditori e le società, cit., pp. 229–235.

³⁷ KPMG, M&A Purchase Price Mechanisms in Europe, Survey 2022; Bain & Company, Italian M&A Report 2024; K. Adams, A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, ABA, 4th ed., 2017.

³⁸ Cass. civ., Sez. I, 25 luglio 2006, n. 16937; V. Roppo, op. cit., pp. 500–505.

³⁹ R. Pardolesi & R. Sassatelli (eds), I contratti di acquisizione di società e di aziende, cit., pp. 212–238; M. Centonze, “Il ruolo della due diligence nelle acquisizioni di aziende”, Giur. comm., 2015, I, pp. 321–352.

⁴⁰ F. Bonelli & M. Jaeger (eds), Acquisizioni di società, cit., pp. 199–230; A. Stabilini, “Garanzie e indennità nel contratto di acquisizione d’azienda”, Contratto e impresa, 2019, 4, pp. 1321– 1358.

⁴¹ Marsh, W&I Insurance in European M&A: Market Update 2024; AIFI, Il mercato del private equity e venture capital in Italia – Rapporto 2024, p. 44.

VIII. Conclusions

The cessione di ramo d’azienda constitutes, from both a civil and fiscal law perspective, a structurally superior instrument to ordinary liquidation for the exit of a foreign corporate group from the Italian market. Its principal advantages — automatic contract succession, mandatory employee transfer with corresponding TFR migration, and the preservation of Industria 4.0/5.0 investment tax credits — are grounded in a well-established doctrinal and judicial framework that, notwithstanding the complexity of its application, offers a degree of transactional certainty that is not available in the liquidation context.

The analysis presented in this article has sought to demonstrate that the instrument’s scope extends beyond the ordinary commercial context to encompass the distressed company framework of the CCII, where going-concern transfers conducted within the CNC, concordato preventivo, and liquidazione giudiziale offer additional advantages in terms of liability discharge, anti-revocation protection, and a favourable fiscal regime on registration tax. The interplay between the CCII framework and the Industria 4.0/5.0 credit regime remains an area of incomplete administrative guidance, warranting specific tax ruling in transactions of material value.

The contractual architecture of the SPA through which these transactions are implemented reflects the tension between the statutory mandatory framework and the parties’ allocative freedom: the representation and warranty package, the disclosure discipline, the indemnification regime, and the post-closing obligations must each be calibrated with reference to the specific factual matrix of the transaction. The growing penetration of W&I insurance in Italian asset deal transactions has shifted this calculus further towards buyer-side protection, influencing both the scope of due diligence and the structure of the negotiated risk allocation.

The overall conclusion that emerges is one of significant underutilisation of the cessione di ramo d’azienda as an exit instrument, particularly in the distressed company context. The barriers are principally informational: advisors, foreign management teams, and insolvency practitioners who are unfamiliar with the interaction between the civil law framework, the CCII, and the Industria 4.0/5.0 fiscal regime routinely default to liquidation without having quantified the value destruction it entails. This article is intended as a contribution to closing that informational gap.

Selected Bibliography and Regulatory References

Legislazione

Codice civile, artt. 2112, 2120, 2557–2560; D.P.R. 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917 (TUIR), artt. 86, 101; D.P.R. 26 ottobre 1972, n. 633 (D.P.R. IVA), art. 2, co. 3, lett. b); D.P.R. 26 aprile 1986, n. 131 (TUR), Tariffa, artt. 2 e 22; D.Lgs. 12 gennaio 2019, n. 14 (CCII), artt. 12–25-bis, 56, 84–120, 121–295, 166, 217, come modificato da: D.Lgs. 17 giugno 2022, n. 83 (correttivo bis); D.L. 24 agosto 2021, n. 118, conv. L. 21 ottobre 2021, n. 147 (istituzione CNC); D.Lgs. 13 settembre 2024, n. 136 (correttivo ter, cd. “Terzo correttivo CCII”); L. 29 dicembre 1990, n. 428, art. 47; L. 20 maggio 1970, n. 300 (Statuto dei Lavoratori), art. 28; L. 27 luglio 2000, n. 212 (Statuto del Contribuente), art. 10-bis; L. 11 dicembre 2016, n. 232 (Industria 4.0); D.L. 29 marzo 2024, n. 39, conv. L. 23 maggio 2024, n. 67 (obbligo comunicazione MIMIT per Transizione 4.0); L. 30 dicembre 2024, n. 207 (Legge di bilancio 2025), art. 1, co. 445–448 (abrogazione credito beni immateriali 4.0; tetto spesa beni materiali); D.L. 2 marzo 2024, n. 19, conv. L. 29 aprile 2024, n. 56 (Industria 5.0); Direttiva 2001/23/CE; Direttiva 2006/112/CE; Direttiva (UE) 2019/1023.

Prassi Amministrativa

Agenzia delle Entrate: Circolare 9/E del 23 luglio 2021; Circolare 18/E del 29 maggio 2013; Circolare 26/E del 1 agosto 2016; Circolare 4/E del 30 marzo 2017; Risoluzione 19/E del 12 aprile 2024 (codici tributo F24 per Transizione 4.0 post-comunicazione MIMIT); Risoluzione 25/E/2024 (riattivazione codici tributo 6936 e 6937); Risoluzione 28/E del 17 marzo 2017; Risoluzione 302/E del 20 ottobre 2008; Risposta ad interpello n. 376 del 9 giugno 2021; Risposta ad interpello n. 425 del 7 luglio 2021. Ministero delle Imprese e del Made in Italy (MIMIT): Decreto Direttoriale 24 aprile 2024 (modelli di comunicazione Transizione 4.0); Decreto Direttoriale 15 maggio 2025 (nuove modalità operative GSE per investimenti 4.0/5.0). FAQ Agenzia delle Entrate del 29 gennaio 2026 (crediti d’imposta Transizione 4.0 – modalità fruizione in F24 per completamenti 2026). Assonime: Guida aggiornata al Decreto Correttivo ter (D.Lgs. 136/2024), novembre 2024; Rassegna di giurisprudenza. Crisi d’impresa, n. 3/2024.

Giurisprudenza

Corte di Cassazione – Sezione I civile: nn. 8643/1994, 22863/2010, 10332/2009, 16937/2006, 9695/2015, 4720/2018, 3828/2020, 15893/2018, 8110/2019, 5671/2013, 7600/2021, 2007/2021, 10272/2022, 22169/2024, 25919/2024. Corte di Cassazione – Sezione V (tributaria): nn. 15067/2019, 3823/2020, 8805/2024 (cessione di diritti su impianto fotovoltaico qualificata come ramo d’azienda), 9536/2024 (criteri IVA per la qualificazione del ramo ceduto: sufficiente l’attitudine all’esercizio d’impresa), 16544/2024 (conferimento di ramo d’azienda più cessione di quote: non riqualificabile come cessione d’azienda ai sensi del nuovo art. 20 TUR), 16655/2024 (valutazione dell’avviamento nella cessione di ramo: onere probatorio a carico del contribuente). Corte di Cassazione – Sezione Lavoro: nn. 5701/2016, 23349/2018, 24718/2015, 17752/2021, 15669/2019, 2166/2016, 4945/2024 (conseguenze della cessione di ramo dichiarata illegittima: doppio rapporto di lavoro de iure e de facto), 11528/2024 (autonomia funzionale del ramo ceduto: conferma del principio consolidato), 12297/2024 (cessione di ramo da impresa in amministrazione straordinaria: primato dell’art. 2112 c.c. nelle operazioni di continuità; accordo sindacale di esclusione del dirigente dichiarato nullo). Corte d’appello di Brescia, 17 novembre 2024 (art. 112, co. 2, lett. d) CCII: risorse esterne e valore di liquidazione nel concordato). Trib. Verona, 26 febbraio 2025, Est. Attanasio (affitto di azienda funzionale a fusione mediante piano attestato nel CCII). Trib. Milano, 25 gennaio 2023 (prima applicazione regola priorità assoluta nel CCII). Corte di Giustizia UE: C-232/04 e C-233/04, Güney-Görres e Demir; C-497/01, Zita Modes; C-463/09, CLECE SA; C-108/10, Scattolon. Corte Suprema di Cassazione – Ufficio del Massimario e del Ruolo: Relazione tematica n. 10/2025 (prime applicazioni del CCII post-correttivo ter in materia di liquidazione giudiziale e vendita dell’azienda in continuità).

Dottrina

S. Ambrosini & S. Pacchi, Diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2024 (include le modifiche del correttivo ter); M. Arato, “Il discrimen tra concordato preventivo liquidatorio e in continuità”, Ristrutturazioni Aziendali, 2025, pp. 3–7; G. Auletta, “Azienda (diritto privato)”, Enc. dir., vol. IV, 1959; C.M. Bianca, Diritto civile, vol. III (Il contratto), Giuffrè, 2019; F. Bonelli & M. Jaeger (eds), Acquisizioni di società, Giuffrè, 2016; G. D’Attorre, Manuale di diritto della crisi e dell’insolvenza, 3a ed. (aggiornata al D.Lgs. 136/2024), Giappichelli, Torino, 2024; N. De Luca & L. Sicignano, “Il terzo correttivo al codice della crisi (parte prima)”, Foro it., 2024, pp. 257 et seq.; D. Finardi, “I soci nel concordato in continuità e le possibili novità del correttivo 2024”, IUS Crisi d’impresa, 4 giugno 2024; M. Fabiani, “Il sistema e i principi del diritto della crisi d’impresa”, dirittodellacrisi.it, 2024; G. Ferrara jr. & F. Corsi, Gli imprenditori e le società, Giuffrè, 2021; F. Galgano, Il contratto, Cedam, 2011; G. Franzoni, “Note intorno al concetto di abuso del diritto nella legge n. 212 del 2000”, Riv. dir. trib., 2016, I, pp. 909–948; F. Guerrera, “La regola di priorità assoluta nel CCII”, Rivista delle società, 2022, II, pp. 823–867; A. Jorio, “La composizione negoziata della crisi d’impresa: prime riflessioni”, Giur. comm., 2022, I, pp. 3–38; P.G. Marchetti, “Clausole di non concorrenza”, Riv. soc., 2005, II, pp. 1422 et seq.; A. Nigro & D. Vattermoli, Diritto della crisi delle imprese, Il Mulino, ultima edizione; I. Pagni & M. Fabiani, “Uno sguardo sulle modifiche al Codice della crisi” (relazione Convegno di Pietrasanta, 2024); L. Panzani, “Lo schema di decreto correttivo del codice della crisi. Prime considerazioni”, dirittodellacrisi.it, 17 luglio 2024; R. Pardolesi & R. Sassatelli (eds), I contratti di acquisizione, Giuffrè, 2007; M. Persiani, Diritto del lavoro, Cedam, 2020; F. Pistolesi, “Art. 20 TUR e art. 10-bis Statuto del contribuente”, GT – Riv. giur. trib., 2022, 4, pp. 289–302; P. Riva, Il piano di risanamento, Egea, Milano, 2022; V. Roppo, Il contratto, Giuffrè, 2011; M. Spiotta, “Il CCII (ri)corretto: uno sguardo d’insieme”, Judicium, 18 settembre 2024; P. Spada, Diritto commerciale, Cedam, 2009; A. Stabilini, “Garanzie e indennità nel contratto di acquisizione d’azienda”, Contratto e impresa, 2019, 4, pp. 1321–1358; L. Stanghellini, “Il piano di risanamento attestato: natura, effetti e libertà di forma”, Fallimento, 2023, 2, pp. 147–168; F. Tesauro, Istituzioni di diritto tributario, Utet, 2020; A. Toffoletto, “La cessione di azienda: profili civilistici e fiscali”, Riv. dott. comm., 2018, 3, pp. 499–527; G. Zizzo, “La plusvalenza nella cessione di azienda”, Riv. dir. trib., 2017, I, pp. 345–378; Id., “Il reddito d’impresa nelle procedure concorsuali”, Riv. dir. trib., 2019, I, pp. 495–531. Fonti di mercato: AIFI, Il mercato del private equity e venture capital in Italia – Rapporto 2024; KPMG, M&A Purchase Price Mechanisms in Europe, Survey 2022; Marsh, W&I Insurance in European M&A: Market Update 2024.