The modernization of Italy’s insolvency framework has been the subject of much interest in recent years, related not least to its role in potentially facilitating an efficient allocation of resources. A unique feature of Italy’s insolvency framework is a special regime for large enterprises known as “extraordinary administration”. This paper evaluates the merits of this special regime by assessing its efficacy and success in achieving its stated goals and comparing its features to international standards and best practices. It finds that the special regime tends to impose large costs on creditors and the state. The regime results, in most cases, in the sale of parts of the group, followed by a liquidation phase of the remaining assets which can take longer than the general regime, hindering legal certainty for creditors and more generally economic efficiency, investment and job creation. Based on international best practices and experience, consideration should be given to folding the special regime into the general insolvency regime, possibly with provisions to allow for state intervention in specific well-defined circumstances.
Seventeen in a series of annual reports comparing business regulation in 190 economies, Doing Business 2020 measures aspects of regulation affecting 10 areas of everyday business activity.
Italian banks are burdened with high levels of nonperforming loans, the cleanup of which depends in important part on the efficiency of insolvency and enforcement processes. Traditionally, these processes in Italy have taken very long, hampering the timely cleanup of balance sheets. In response, the authorities have legislated a number of measures. This paper explores the recent insolvency and enforcement reforms and the remaining challenges. These reforms introduce important positive changes that are expected to yield full benefits over the medium to long term. The efficacy of the reforms, including to deal with the current stock of high nonperforming loans, can be enhanced by introducing effective out-of-court enforcement mechanisms, supplemented by a more intensive use of informal and hybrid debt-restructuring solutions. Moreover, there is an urgent need to rationalize the system, which over the years has become very complex and intricate.
The COVID-19 pandemic has increased insolvency risks, especially among small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which are vastly overrepresented in hard-hit sectors. Without government intervention, even firms that are viable a priori could end up being liquidated—particularly in sectors characterized by labor-intensive technologies, threatening both macroeconomic and social stability. This staff discussion note assesses the impact of the pandemic on SME insolvency risks and policy options to address them. It quantifies the impact of weaker aggregate demand, changes in sectoral consumption patterns, and lockdowns on firm balance sheets and estimates the impact of a range of policy options, for a large sample of SMEs in (mostly) advanced economies.
This book reconsiders the treatment of distressed Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Recognising that insolvency systems traditionally suit larger enterprises, and that they do not always apply neatly to smaller entities, the book proposes a 'modular' approach designed to facilitate the treatment of smaller enterprises in distress.
This 2018 Article IV Consultation highlights that Italy has been struggling with low economic growth and poor social outcomes and structural weaknesses have been at the core of this economic underperformance. Growth is projected to slow further, and the risk of recession has risen. The extent to which risks materialize depends largely on Italy’s policies. The authorities felt strongly that a fiscal stimulus is needed to promote economic growth and improve social outcomes. The authorities are also seeking to reduce temporary employment and support job search. The report suggests that faster potential growth is the only durable way for Italy to improve outcomes and enhance resilience. A package of structural reforms, a credible fiscal consolidation based on growth-friendly and inclusive measures, and bank balance sheet strengthening structural reforms, fiscal policy, and financial stability are also recommended. As by facilitating re-alignment of wages with productivity at the firm and regional levels, Italy’s high structural unemployment would fall, as would the continued heavy resort to temporary employment.
This study provides an overview of the legal, institutional, and regulatory framework that countries should put in place to address cases of bank insolvency. It is primarily intended to inform the work of the staffs of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and to provide guidance to their member countries.
Fifteen in a series of annual reports comparing business regulation in 190 economies, Doing Business 2018 measures aspects of regulation affecting 10 areas of everyday business activity: • Starting a business • Dealing with construction permits • Getting electricity • Registering property • Getting credit • Protecting minority investors • Paying taxes • Trading across borders • Enforcing contracts • Resolving insolvency These areas are included in the distance to frontier score and ease of doing business ranking. Doing Business also measures features of labor market regulation, which is not included in these two measures. The report updates all indicators as of June 1, 2017, ranks economies on their overall “ease of doing business†?, and analyzes reforms to business regulation †“ identifying which economies are strengthening their business environment the most. Doing Business illustrates how reforms in business regulations are being used to analyze economic outcomes for domestic entrepreneurs and for the wider economy. It is a flagship product produced in partnership by the World Bank Group that garners worldwide attention on regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship. More than 137 economies have used the Doing Business indicators to shape reform agendas and monitor improvements on the ground. In addition, the Doing Business data has generated over 2,182 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals since its inception. Data Notes; Distance to Frontier and Ease of Doing Business Ranking; and Summaries of Doing Business Reforms in 2016/17 can be downloaded separately from the Doing Business website.
Europe has known very different systems of company laws for a long time. These differences do not only pertain to the board structures of public companies, where single-tier and two-tier structures can be distinguished, they also pertain to the principles of fixed legal capital. Fixed legal capital is not a traditional ingredient of English and Irish company law and had to be incorpo-rated into these legal systems (only) for public limited companies according to the Second European Company Law Directive of 1976. Both jurisdictions have never really embraced these rules. Against this background, the British Accounting Standards Board (ASB) and the Company Law Centre at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) have initiated and supported a study of the benefits of this legal system by a group of experts led by Jonathan Rickford. The report of this group has been published in 2004. Its result was that legal capital was costly and superfluous; hence, the Second Directive should be repealed. The British government has adopted this view and wants the European Commission to act accordingly. Against this background a group of German and European company law experts, academics as well as practitioners, have come together to scrutinise sense and benefits of fixed legal capital and all its specific elements guided by the following questions: What is the relevant legal concept supposed to achieve? What does it achieve in reality? What criticisms are there? Which proposals or alternatives are available? From the outset the group of experts has endeavoured to cooperate with foreign colleagues, which resulted in very fruitful and pleasant exchanges. This volume contains, besides an executive summary of the results, 16 essays on specific aspects of legal capital in Germany covering also neighbouring fields of law (e.g. accounting, insolvency);7 reports on fixed legal capital in other jurisdictions (France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the U.S.A.) addressing the same questions as the essays on German law. The British initiative disapproves of the Second Directive. The Directive does only deal with public limited companies in Europe, which is reflected in the analysis presented here. It is only concerned with the fixed legal capital of public limited companies, not with capital issues of private companies. The study has arrived at a result that differs completely from that of the Rickford group. It verifies the usefulness of the concept of fixed legal capital and wishes to convince the European Commission of the benefits of the Second Company Law Directive.
