By judgment no. 2154/2026 of 14 September 2026, the Court of Potenza fully dismissed the objection to a payment order brought by the principal debtor company and by three guarantors, upholding the injunctive relief in favour of a securitisation special purpose vehicle, assisted by Cassinelli Studio Legale.
The Court fully applied the principle of law laid down by Cass. SS.UU. no. 24825 of 28 August 2026, pursuant to which, in the case of a specific guarantee reproducing the clauses of revival, survival and derogation from Article 1957 of the Italian Civil Code and executed at a time other than that covered by Bank of Italy measure no. 55/2005, the trial court ascertains the correspondence of the contractual model to an anticompetitive agreement by using the administrative finding as an “evidential element which is not, on its own, sufficient”.
As clarified by the Supreme nomophylactic panel, specific guarantees executed outside the temporal perimeter ascertained by the Authority do not benefit from the “enhanced” evidential effect of the measure, and require instead a specific demonstration of the existence, at the time of execution of the guarantee, of an anticompetitive agreement of which it constitutes a downstream application. In the case at hand, in the absence of any evidential element to that effect, the full validity of the guarantee enforced was affirmed.
The company was assisted by Nicola Cassinelli and Francesca Minelli.