Considering the definitive entry into force of Legislative Decree 12 January 2019, n. 14
(so-called “Crisis and Insolvency Code”), the paper aims to explore the definitions of “crisis” and “insolvency” as well as all their possible declinations. In effect, the latest Code of Crisis contemplates an almost unknown definitional apparatus, which deserves to be further explored from a more comprehensive multidisciplinary perspective. Moving from the crisis path according to the traditional vision of Italian Business Science, the article provides a critically review of the current regulatory framework, evaluating the suitability of the new procedures and instruments introduced for preventing and managing different manifestations of business crisis. Despite the breadth of academic contributions on the theme, the Business Science view has rarely been considered by the national legislator in defining the applicable regulation on business crises, giving rise to uncertainties and ambiguities on both definitional and operational levels. In fact, the normative solutions, which have been implemented over the time, tend to be ineffective in providing a coherent interpretation of the phenomenon under consideration. Surely, the persistence of relevant contradictions and divergences between the Business Science vision and the Legal one precludes offering an adequate characterisation of the complex and interrelated nature of business crises. Starting from these premises, the purpose of the present discussion is to promote growth-enhancing conditions for achieving wider convergence on the difficult conceptualisation of the topic investigated. In line with the stated aims and the methodological approach adopted, the first part of the study offers a theoretical framework of the topic, discussing the notion of crisis as traditionally established in the prevailing business economic literature. This is followed by an analytical examination of the controversial definitions of crisis and insolvency contemplated in the final version of Code of Crisis, highlighting the differences and similarities from the correspondent definitions included in the original version. Contextually, the normative definitions are explored
and commented through the theoretical lens of Business Science. The concluding part develops a critical reflection on the limits and contradictions of doctrinal elaboration in providing a conceptual reading of the phenomenon investigated consistent with its
practical implications, imagining possible paths for promoting a broader dialogue between the two scientific fields.
KEYWORDS: Insolvency, Likelihood of insolvency, early warnings, Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, Crisis
