The Bankruptcy Proceedings Reform Law has finally been published in the Official State Gazette, after its approval on September 22nd. It was a necessary and expected reform, given the growth of issue of bankruptcy proceedings (the first half year of 2011 has been the one with the highest issue of bankruptcy declarations). Although the headlines of the reform are dominated by 'minor' issues (such as the rule that sports clubs that do not pay their players will be relegated), there are many aspects that represent relevant technical improvements (such as the more complete regulation of 'refinancing agreements', of related insolvency proceedings, of the electronic communication of credits, or of insolvency proceedings without mass). Furthermore, on other points the law changes the 'lines of force' of the previous regulation, in a desperate attempt -one more- to find the core topic to speed up a process that has proved to be of little use. This trend includes the configuration of the bankruptcy administration as a single-person administration, or the possible opening of liquidation at any time.

The bankruptcy process has demonstrated up to now, and possibly also from the reform onwards, its absolute lack of efficiency. It should achieve either that creditors collect as much of their claims as possible, or that a agreement is reached if this is possible, and whatever the solution is that it is reached soon and at reasonable costs. Instead, it remains a very long and very expensive process. The average of duration of the insolvency proceedings is two years, and as for the economic cost, it is enough to point out that in a good part of the cases all this massive judicial process only serves to create a series of expenses that engulf the little money that the businessman had at his disposal. The small creditor, of course, does not receive a single euro, while watching the sarcastic spectacle of how the professional creditors and the technicians involved in the process share out the money. To this contributes, in no small measure, to the current collapse of the commercial courts, which are materially unable to cope with the accumulation of insolvency proceedings declared, and the number of issues raised in each insolvency, in addition to the other lawsuits for which they have jurisdiction. In this status, rather than 'improving' a process that has already demonstrated its inoperability to achieve an orderly collection or a agreement, it would possibly have been more useful to explore other alternative avenues. There is no point in enjoying the guarantee of a judicial process when through it a majority of creditors do not collect. Furthermore, the solution to the crisis of companies and, let us not forget, of consumers, requires measures to be taken in other areas.

For example, that the public administration pays its commitments on time - how many business insolvencies are not due to the non-payment of public debts, even though taxes are accrued and collected by the same administration on time! Therefore, the reform has not regulated very complicated issues, and also against the interest of financial institutions, such as the possible cancellation of consumers' outstanding debts when their assets are exhausted. It is easier to regulate the technical aspects (the judicial processes to solve the problem of an insolvent debtor) than those Materials (the causes of the crisis and some possible 'brave' solutions to it).

At final, with the insolvency reform we will possibly have a better designed insolvency process. But it is very doubtful that we will solve the problems of a debtor's crisis, and perhaps it is no more than a 'politically correct' reform (a simple 'patch') that avoids going deeply into the search for realistic solutions to the problem of the economic crisis of companies and individuals.