Italien – Ist Ihre Gerichtsstandsklausel durchsetzbar?

18 Juli 2022

  • Italien
  • Rechtskonflikte

Zusammenfassung

Anhand der Geschichte von Nike, die sich aus der Biografie des Gründers Phil Knight ableitet, lassen sich einige Lehren  für internationale Vertriebsverträge ziehen: Wie man den Vertrag aushandelt, die Vertragsdauer festlegt, die Exklusivität und die Geschäftsziele definiert und die richtige Art der Streitschlichtung bestimmt.

Worüber ich in diesem Artikel spreche

  • Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger und die Geburt von Nike
  • Wie man eine internationale Vertriebsvereinbarung aushandelt
  • Vertragliche Exklusivität in einer Handelsvertriebsvereinbarung
  • Mindestumsatzklauseln in Vertriebsverträgen
  • Vertragsdauer  und Kündigungsfrist
  • Eigentum an Marken in Handelsverträgen
  • Die Bedeutung der Mediation bei internationalen Handelsverträgen
  • Streitbeilegungsklauseln in internationalen Verträgen
  • Wie wir Ihnen helfen können

Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger und die Geburt von Nike

Warum ist die berühmteste Sportbekleidungsmarke der Welt Nike und nicht Onitsuka Tiger?
Die Biographie des Nike-Schöpfers Phil Knight mit dem Titel “Shoe Dog” gibt hierauf antworten und ist nicht nur für Liebhaber des Genres eine absolut empfehlenswerte Lektüre.

Bewegt von seiner Leidenschaft für den Laufsport und seiner Intuition, dass es auf dem amerikanischen Sportschuhmarkt, der damals von Adidas dominiert wurde, eine Lücke gab, importierte Knight 1964 als erster überhaupt eine japanische Sportschuhmarke, Onitsuka Tiger, in die USA.  Mit diesen Sportschuhen konnte sich Knight innerhalb von 6 Jahren einen Marktanteil von satten 70 % sichern.

Das von Knight und seinem ehemaligen College-Trainer Bill Bowerman gegründete Unternehmen hieß damals noch Blue Ribbon Sports.

Die Geschäftsbeziehung zwischen Blue Ribbon-Nike und dem japanischen Hersteller Onitsuka Tiger  gestaltete sich trotz der sehr guten Verkaufszahlen und den postiven Wachstumsaussichten von  Beginn an als sehr turbulent.

Als Knight dann kurz nach der Vertragsverlängerung mit dem japanischen Hersteller erfuhr, dass Onitsuka in den USA nach einem anderen Vertriebspartner Ausschau hielt , beschloss Knight  – aus Angst, vom Markt ausgeschlossen zu  werden –  sich seinerseits mit einem anderen japanischen Lieferanten zusammenzutun und seine eigene Marke zu gründen. Damit war die spätere Weltmarke Nike geboren.

shoes

Als der japanische Hersteller Onitsuka von dem Nike-Projekt erfuhr, verklagte dieser  Blue Ribbon wegen  Verstoß gegen das Wettbewerbsverbot,  welches dem Vertriebshändler die Einfuhr anderer in Japan hergestellter Produkte untersagte, und beendete die Geschäftsbeziehung mit sofortiger Wirkung.

Blue Ribbon führte hiergegen an, dass der Verstoß von dem Hersteller Onitsuka Tiger ausging, der  sich bereits als der Vertrag noch in Kraft war und die Geschäfte mehr als gut liefen mit anderen potenziellen Vertriebshändlern getroffen hatte.

Diese Auseinandersetzung führte zu zwei Gerichtsverfahren, eines in Japan und eines in den USA, die der Geschichte von Nike ein vorzeitiges Ende hätten setzen können.

Zum Glück (für Nike) entschied der amerikanische Richter zu Gunsten des Händlers und der Streit wurde mit einem Vergleich beendet: Damit begann für Nike die Reise, die sie 15 Jahre später zur wichtigsten Sportartikelmarke der Welt machen sollte.

Wir werden sehen, was uns die Geschichte von Nike lehrt und welche Fehler bei einem internationalen Vertriebsvertrag tunlichst vermieden werden sollten.

Wie verhandelt man eine internationale Handelsvertriebsvereinbarung?

In seiner Biografie schreibt Knight, dass er bald bedauerte, die Zukunft seines Unternehmens an eine eilig verfasste, wenige Zeilen umfassende Handelsvereinbarung gebunden zu haben, die am Ende einer Sitzung zur Aushandlung der Erneuerung des Vertriebsvertrags geschlossen wurde.

Was beinhaltete diese Vereinbarung?

Die Vereinbarung sah lediglich die Verlängerung des Rechts von Blue Ribbon vor, die Produkte in den USA exklusiv zu vertreiben, und zwar für weitere drei Jahre.

In der Praxis kommt es  häufig vor, dass sich internationale Vertriebsverträge auf mündliche Vereinbarungen oder sehr einfache Vertragswerke mit kurzer Dauer beschränken. Die übliche Erklärung dafür ist, dass es auf diese Weise möglich ist, die Geschäftsbeziehung zu testen, ohne die vertragliche Bindung zu eng werden zu lassen.

Diese Art, Geschäfte zu machen, ist jedoch nicht zu empfehlen  und kann sogar gefährlich werden: Ein  Vertrag sollte niemals  als Last oder Zwang angesehen werden, sondern als Garantie für die Rechte beider Parteien. Einen schriftlichen Vertrag nicht oder nur sehr übereilt abzuschließen, bedeutet, grundlegende Elemente der künftigen Beziehung, wie die, die zum Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger führten, ohne klare Vereinbarungen zu belassen: Hierzu gehören Aspekte wie Handelsziele, Investitionen, das Eigentum an Marken – um nur einige zu benennen.

Handelt es sich zudem um einen internationalen Vertrag, ist die Notwendigkeit einer vollständigen und ausgewogenen Vereinbarung noch größer, da in Ermangelung von Vereinbarungen zwischen den Parteien oder in Ergänzung zu diesen Vereinbarungen ein Recht zur Anwendung kommt, mit dem eine der Parteien nicht vertraut ist, d. h. im Allgemeinen das Recht des Landes, in dem der Händler seinen Sitz hat.

Auch wenn Sie sich nicht in einer Blue-Ribbon-Situation befinden, in der es sich um einen Vertrag handelt, von dem die Existenz des Unternehmens abhängt, sollten internationale Verträge stets mit Hilfe eines fachkundigen Anwalts besprochen und ausgehandelt werden, der das auf den Vertrag anwendbare Recht kennt und dem Unternehmer helfen kann, die wichtigen Vertragsklauseln zu ermitteln und auszuhandeln.

Territoriale Exklusivität, kommerzielle Ziele und Mindestumsatzziele

Anlass für den Konflikt zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger war zunächst einmal die Bewertung der Absatzentwicklung auf dem US-Markt.

Onitsuka argumentierte, dass der Umsatz unter dem Potenzial des US-Marktes liege, während nach Angaben von Blue Ribbon die Verkaufsentwicklung sehr positiv sei, da sich der Umsatz bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt jedes Jahr verdoppelt habe und ein bedeutender Anteil des Marktsektors erobert worden sei.

Als Blue Ribbon erfuhr, dass Onituska andere Kandidaten für den Vertrieb seiner Produkte in den USA prüfte, und befürchtete, damit bald vom Markt verdrängt zu werden , bereitete Blue Ribbon die Marke Nike als Plan B vor: Als der  japanische Hersteller diese Marke entdeckte , kam es zu einem Rechtsstreit zwischen den Parteien, der zu einem Eklat führte.

Der Streit hätte vielleicht vermieden werden können, wenn sich die Parteien auf kommerzielle Ziele geeinigt hätten und der Vertrag eine in Alleinvertriebsvereinbarungen übliche Klausel enthalten hätte, d.h. ein Mindestabsatzziel für den Vertriebshändler.

In einer Alleinvertriebsvereinbarung gewährt der Hersteller dem Händler einen starken Gebietsschutz für die Investitionen, die der Händler zur Erschließung des zugewiesenen Marktes tätigt.

Um dieses  Zugeständnis der Exklusivität auszugleichen, ist es üblich, dass der Hersteller vom Vertriebshändler einen so genannten garantierten Mindestumsatz oder ein Mindestziel verlangt, das der Vertriebshändler jedes Jahr erreichen muss, um den ihm gewährten privilegierten Status zu behalten.

Für den Fall, dass das Mindestziel nicht erreicht wird, sieht der Vertrag dann in der Regel vor, dass der Hersteller das Recht hat, vom Vertrag zurückzutreten (bei einem unbefristeten Vertrag) oder den Vertrag nicht zu verlängern (bei einem befristeten Vertrag) oder aber auch die Gebietsexklusivität aufzuheben bzw.  einzuschränken.

Der Vertrag zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger sah derartige  Zielvorgaben nicht vor – und das nachdem er gerade erst um drei Jahre verlängert wurde. Hinzukam, dass sich die Parteien bei der Bewertung der Ergebnisse des Vertriebshändlers nicht einig waren. Es stellt sich daher die Frage: Wie können in einem Mehrjahresvertrag Mindestumsatzziele vorgesehen werden?

In Ermangelung zuverlässiger Daten verlassen sich die Parteien häufig auf vorher festgelegte prozentuale Erhöhungsmechanismen: + 10 % im zweiten Jahr, + 30 % im dritten Jahr, + 50 % im vierten Jahr und so weiter.

Das Problem bei diesem Automatismus ist, dass dadurch  Zielvorgaben vereinbart werden, die nicht auf tatsächlichen Daten über die künftige Entwicklung der Produktverkäufe, der Verkäufe der Wettbewerber und des Marktes im Allgemeinen basieren , und die daher sehr weit von den aktuellen Absatzmöglichkeiten des Händlers entfernt sein können.

So wäre beispielsweise die Anfechtung des Vertriebsunternehmens wegen Nichterfüllung der Zielvorgaben für das zweite oder dritte Jahr in einer rezessiven Wirtschaft sicherlich eine fragwürdige Entscheidung, die wahrscheinlich zu Meinungsverschiedenheiten führen würde.

Besser wäre eine Klausel, mit der Ziele von Jahr zu Jahr einvernehmlich festgelegt werden. Diese besagt, dass die Ziele zwischen den Parteien unter Berücksichtigung der Umsatzentwicklung in den vorangegangenen Monaten und mit einer gewissen Vorlaufzeit vor Ende des laufenden Jahres vereinbart werden.  Für den Fall, dass keine Einigung über die neue Zielvorgabe zustande kommt, kann der Vertrag vorsehen, dass die Zielvorgabe des Vorjahres angewandt wird oder dass die Parteien das Recht haben, den Vertrag unter Einhaltung einer bestimmten Kündigungsfrist zu kündigen.

Andererseits kann die Zielvorgabe auch als Anreiz für den Vertriebshändler dienen: So kann z. B. vorgesehen werden, dass bei Erreichen eines bestimmten Umsatzes die Vereinbarung erneuert, die Gebietsexklusivität verlängert oder ein bestimmter kommerzieller Ausgleich für das folgende Jahr gewährt wird.

Eine letzte Empfehlung ist die korrekte Handhabung der Mindestzielklausel, sofern sie im Vertrag enthalten ist: Es kommt häufig vor, dass der Hersteller die Erreichung des Ziels für ein bestimmtes Jahr bestreitet, nachdem die Jahresziele über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg nicht erreicht oder nicht aktualisiert wurden, ohne dass dies irgendwelche Konsequenzen hatte.

In solchen Fällen ist es möglich, dass der Händler behauptet, dass ein impliziter Verzicht auf diesen vertraglichen Schutz vorliegt und der Widerruf daher nicht gültig ist: Um Streitigkeiten zu diesem Thema zu vermeiden, ist es ratsam, in der Mindestzielklausel ausdrücklich vorzusehen, dass die unterbliebene Anfechtung des Nichterreichens des Ziels während eines bestimmten Zeitraums nicht bedeutet, dass auf das Recht, die Klausel in Zukunft zu aktivieren, verzichtet wird.

Die Kündigungsfrist für die Beendigung eines internationalen Vertriebsvertrags

Der andere Streitpunkt zwischen den Parteien war die Verletzung eines Wettbewerbsverbots: Blue Ribbon verkaufte die Marke Nike , obwohl der Vertrag den Verkauf anderer in Japan hergestellter Schuhe untersagte.

Onitsuka Tiger behauptete, Blue Ribbon habe gegen das Wettbewerbsverbot verstoßen, während der Händler die Ansicht vertrat , dass er angesichts der bevorstehenden Entscheidung des Herstellers, die Vereinbarung zu kündigen, keine andere Wahl hatte.

Diese Art von Streitigkeiten kann vermieden werden, indem für die Beendigung (oder Nichtverlängerung) eine klare Kündigungsfrist festgelegt wird: Diese Frist hat die grundlegende Funktion, den Parteien die Möglichkeit zu geben, sich auf die Beendigung der Beziehung vorzubereiten und ihre Aktivitäten nach der Beendigung neu zu organisieren.

Um insbesondere Streitigkeiten wie die zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger zu vermeiden, kann in einem internationalen Vertriebsvertrag vorgesehen werden, dass die Parteien während  der Kündigungsfristmit anderen potenziellen Vertriebshändlern und Herstellern in Kontakt treten können und dass dies nicht gegen die Ausschließlichkeits- und Wettbewerbsverpflichtungen verstößt.

Im Fall von Blue Ribbon war der Händler über die bloße Suche nach einem anderen Lieferanten hinaus sogar noch einen Schritt weiter gegangen, da er begonnen hatte, Nike-Produkte zu verkaufen, während der Vertrag mit Onitsuka noch gültig war. Dieses Verhalten stellt einen schweren Verstoß gegen  die getroffene Ausschließlichkeitsvereinbarung dar.

Ein besonderer Aspekt, der bei der Kündigungsfrist zu berücksichtigen ist, ist die Dauer: Wie lang muss die Kündigungsfrist sein, um als fair zu gelten? Bei langjährigen Geschäftsbeziehungen ist es wichtig, der anderen Partei genügend Zeit einzuräumen, um sich auf dem Markt neu zu positionieren, nach alternativen Vertriebshändlern oder Lieferanten zu suchen oder (wie im Fall von Blue Ribbon/Nike) eine eigene Marke zu schaffen und einzuführen.

Ein weiteres Element, das bei der Mitteilung der Kündigung zu berücksichtigen ist, besteht darin, dass die Kündigungsfrist so bemessen sein muss, dass der Vertriebshändler die zur Erfüllung seiner Verpflichtungen während der Vertragslaufzeit getätigten Investitionen amortisieren kann; im Fall von Blue Ribbon hatte der Vertriebshändler auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch des Herstellers eine Reihe von Einmarkengeschäften sowohl an der West- als auch an der Ostküste der USA eröffnet.

Eine Kündigung des Vertrags kurz nach seiner Verlängerung und mit einer zu kurzen Vorankündigung hätte es dem Vertriebshändler nicht erlaubt, das Vertriebsnetz mit einem Ersatzprodukt neu zu organisieren, was die Schließung der Geschäfte, die die japanischen Schuhe bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt verkauft hatten, erzwungen hätte.

tiger

Im Allgemeinen ist es ratsam, eine Kündigungsfrist von mindestens 6 Monaten vorzusehen. Bei internationalen Vertriebsverträgen sollten jedoch neben den von den Parteien getätigten Investitionen auch etwaige spezifische Bestimmungen des auf den Vertrag anwendbaren Rechts (hier z. B. eine eingehende Analyse der plötzlichen Kündigung von Verträgen in Frankreich) oder die Rechtsprechung zum Thema Rücktritt von Geschäftsbeziehungen beachtet werden (in einigen Fällen kann die für einen langfristigen Vertriebskonzessionsvertrag als angemessen erachtete Frist 24 Monate betragen).

Schließlich ist es normal, dass der Händler zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses noch im Besitz von Produktvorräten ist: Dies kann problematisch sein, da der Händler in der Regel die Vorräte auflösen möchte (Blitzverkäufe oder Verkäufe über Internetkanäle mit starken Rabatten), was der Geschäftspolitik des Herstellers und der neuen Händler zuwiderlaufen kann.

Um diese Art von Situation zu vermeiden, kann in den Vertriebsvertrag eine Klausel aufgenommen werden, die das Recht des Herstellers auf Rückkauf der vorhandenen Bestände bei Vertragsende regelt, wobei der Rückkaufpreis bereits festgelegt ist (z. B. in Höhe des Verkaufspreises an den Händler für Produkte der laufenden Saison, mit einem Abschlag von 30 % für Produkte der vorangegangenen Saison und mit einem höheren Abschlag für Produkte, die mehr als 24 Monate zuvor verkauft wurden).

Markeninhaberschaft in einer internationalen Vertriebsvereinbarung

Im Laufe der Vertriebsbeziehung hatte Blue Ribbon eine neuartige Sohle für Laufschuhe entwickelt und die Marken Cortez und Boston für die Spitzenmodelle der Kollektion geprägt, die beim Publikum sehr erfolgreich waren und große Popularität erlangten: Bei Vertragsende beanspruchten nun beide Parteien das Eigentum an den Marken.

Derartige Situationen treten häufig in internationalen Vertriebsbeziehungen auf: Der Händler lässt die Marke des Herstellers in dem Land, in dem er tätig ist, registrieren, um Konkurrenten daran zu hindern, dies zu tun, und um die Marke im Falle des Verkaufs gefälschter Produkte schützen zu können; oder es kommt vor, dass der Händler, wie in dem hier behandelten Streitfall, an der Schaffung neuer, für seinen Markt bestimmter Marken mitwirkt.

Am Ende der Geschäftsbeeziehung, wenn keine klare Vereinbarung zwischen den Parteien vorliegt, kann es zu einem Streit wie im Fall Nike kommen: Wer ist der Eigentümer der Marke – der Hersteller oder der Händler?

tiger

Um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden, ist es ratsam, die Marke in allen Ländern zu registrieren, in denen die Produkte vertrieben werden, und nicht nur dort: Im Falle Chinas zum Beispiel ist es ratsam, die Marke auch dann zu registrieren, wenn sie dort nicht vertreiben wird, um zu verhindern, dass Dritte die Marke in böser Absicht übernehmen (weitere Informationen finden Sie in diesem Beitrag auf Legalmondo).

Es ist auch ratsam, in den Vertriebsvertrag eine Klausel aufzunehmen, die dem Händler die Eintragung der Marke (oder ähnlicher Marken) in dem Land, in dem er tätig ist, untersagt und dem Hersteller ausdrücklich das Recht einräumt, die Übertragung der Marke zu verlangen, falls dies dennoch geschieht.

Eine solche Klausel hätte die Entstehung des Rechtsstreits zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger verhindert.

Der von uns geschilderte Sachverhalt stammt aus dem Jahr 1976: Heutzutage ist es ratsam, im Vertrag nicht nur die Eigentumsverhältnisse an der Marke und die Art und Weise der Nutzung durch den Händler und sein Vertriebsnetz zu klären, sondern auch die Nutzung der Marke wie auch der Unterscheidungszeichen des Herstellers in den Kommunikationskanälen, insbesondere in den sozialen Medien, zu regeln.

Es ist ratsam, eindeutig festzulegen, dass niemand anderes als der Hersteller Eigentümer der Social-Media-Profile wie auch der erstellten Inhalte und der Daten ist, die durch die Verkaufs-, Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten in dem Land, in dem der Händler tätig ist, generiert werden, und dass er nur die Lizenz hat, diese gemäß den Anweisungen des Eigentümers zu nutzen.

Darüber hinaus ist es sinnvoll, in der Vereinbarung festzulegen, wie die Marke verwendet wird und welche Kommunikations- und Verkaufsförderungsmaßnahmen auf dem Markt ergriffen werden, um Initiativen zu vermeiden, die negative oder kontraproduktive Auswirkungen haben könnten.

Die Klausel kann auch durch die Festlegung von Vertragsstrafen für den Fall verstärkt werden, dass sich der Händler bei Vertragsende weigert, die Kontrolle über die digitalen Kanäle und die im Rahmen der Geschäftstätigkeit erzeugten Daten zu übertragen.

Mediation in internationalen Handelsverträgen

Ein weiterer interessanter Punkt, der sich am  Fall Blue Ribbon vs. Onitsuka Tiger erläutern lässt , steht im Zusammenhang mit der Bewältigung von Konflikten in internationalen Vertriebsbeziehungen: Situationen wie die, die wir gesehen haben, können durch den Einsatz von Mediation effektiv gelöst werden.

Dabei handelt es sich um einen Schlichtungsversuch, mit dem ein spezialisiertes Gremium oder ein Mediator betraut wird, um eine gütliche Einigung zu erzielen und ein Gerichtsverfahren zu vermeiden.

Die Mediation kann im Vertrag als erster Schritt vor einem eventuellen Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahren vorgesehen sein oder sie kann freiwillig im Rahmen eines bereits laufenden Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahrens eingeleitet werden.

Die Vorteile sind vielfältig: Der wichtigste ist die Möglichkeit, eine wirtschaftliche  Lösung zu finden, die die Fortsetzung der Beziehung ermöglicht, anstatt nur nach Wegen zur Beendigung der Geschäftsbeziehung zwischen den Parteien zu suchen.

Ein weiterer interessanter Aspekt der Mediation ist die Überwindung von persönlichen Konflikten: Im Fall Blue Ribbon vs. Onitsuka zum Beispiel war ein entscheidendes Element für die Eskalation der Probleme zwischen den Parteien die schwierige persönliche Beziehung zwischen dem CEO von Blue Ribbon und dem Exportmanager des japanischen Herstellers, die durch starke kulturelle Unterschiede verschärft wurde.

Der Mediationsprozess führt eine dritte Person ein, die in der Lage ist, einen Dialog mit den Parteien zu führen und sie bei der Suche nach Lösungen von gegenseitigem Interesse zu unterstützen, was entscheidend sein kann, um Kommunikationsprobleme oder persönliche Feindseligkeiten zu überwinden.

Für alle, die sich für dieses Thema interessieren, verweisen wir auf den hierzu verfassten  Beitrag auf Legalmondo sowie  auf die Aufzeichnung eines kürzlich durchgeführten Webinars zur Mediation internationaler Konflikte.

Streitbeilegungsklauseln in internationalen Vertriebsvereinbarungen

Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger führte dazu, dass die Parteien zwei parallele Gerichtsverfahren einleiteten, eines in den USA (durch den  Händler) und eines in Japan (durch den  Hersteller).

Dies war nur deshalb  möglich, weil der Vertrag nicht ausdrücklich vorsah, wie etwaige künftige Streitigkeiten beigelegt werden sollten.  In der Konsequenz führte dies zu einer prozessual sehr komplizierten Situation mit gleich zwei gerichtlichen Fronten in verschiedenen Ländern.

Die Klauseln, die festlegen, welches Recht auf einen Vertrag anwendbar ist und wie Streitigkeiten beigelegt werden, werden in der Praxis als „Mitternachtsklauseln“ bezeichnet, da sie oft die letzten Klauseln im Vertrag sind, die spät in der Nacht ausgehandelt werden.

Es handelt sich hierbei  um sehr wichtige Klauseln, die bewusst gewählt  werden müssen, um unwirksame oder kontraproduktive Lösungen zu vermeiden.

Wie wir Ihnen helfen können

Der Abschluss eines internationalen Handelsvertriebsvertrags ist eine wichtige Investition, denn er regelt die vertragliche Beziehungen zwischen den Parteien verbindlich für die Zukunft  und gibt ihnen die Instrumente an die Hand, um alle Situationen zu bewältigen, die sich aus der künftigen Zusammenarbeit ergeben werden.

Es ist nicht nur wichtig, eine korrekte, vollständige und ausgewogene Vereinbarung auszuhandeln und abzuschließen, sondern auch zu wissen, wie sie im Laufe der Jahre zu handhaben ist, vor allem, wenn Konfliktsituationen auftreten.

Legalmondo bietet Ihnen die Möglichkeit, mit Anwälten zusammenzuarbeiten, die in mehr als 60 Ländern Erfahrung im internationalen Handelsvertrieb haben:  Bei bestehendem Beratungsbedarf schreiben Sie uns.

Nach italienischem Recht steht es den Vertragsparteien – die beide juristische Personen des Privatrechts sind – im Allgemeinen frei, das zuständige Gericht für Streitigkeiten aus einem solchen Vertrag zu vereinbaren.

Obwohl solche Klauseln gültig sind, kann ihre Durchsetzbarkeit durch bestimmte formale Anforderungen eingeschränkt werden, die berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Seltsamerweise sind diese Anforderungen oft strenger, wenn beide Parteien in Italien ansässig sind, und lockerer, wenn eine der Parteien im Ausland, insbesondere in einem anderen EU-Land, ansässig ist.

In Anbetracht der derzeitigen Unsicherheiten in der Rechtsprechung ist jedoch in jedem Fall ein vorsichtiges Vorgehen bei der Vertragsgestaltung gerechtfertigt.

Exklusives oder nicht exklusives Forum?

Nehmen wir zum Beispiel die folgende Klausel in einem Handelsvertrag zwischen zwei Privatunternehmen: „Zuständiges Gericht – Für alle Streitigkeiten sind die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig„.

Diese Klausel ist offensichtlich unbedenklich. Sie wurde jedoch vor kurzem vom italienischen Obersten Gerichtshof („Corte di Cassazione“) für nicht durchsetzbar erklärt, insbesondere unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Nichtexklusivität (Oberster Gerichtshof, Zivilabteilung (Cass. Civ. Sez.) VI-3, Beschluss vom 25.1.2018, Nr. 1838).

In diesem Fall ließ ein italienisches Unternehmen die andere Partei (ein anderes italienisches Unternehmen) seine allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen unterzeichnen, die die oben genannte Klausel enthielten. Ungeachtet dessen wurde dem ersten Unternehmen ein Zahlungsbefehl („decreto ingiuntivo“) des Gerichts von Siena zugestellt, wo das zweite Unternehmen trotz der Zustimmung zur Gerichtsstandsklausel Klage erhoben hatte.

Das erste Unternehmen konnte sich nicht erfolgreich gegen den Zahlungsbefehl wehren, indem es das Argument der Unzuständigkeit des Gerichts von Siena anführte. Es konnte nämlich die in seinen allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen enthaltene Gerichtsstandsklausel nicht durchsetzen, da in der Klausel nicht festgelegt war, dass die Gerichte von Mailand der „ausschließliche“ Gerichtsstand sind.

Nach Ansicht unseres Obersten Gerichtshofs (der damit seine eigene frühere Rechtsprechung bestätigte) hätte diese Klausel daher lauten müssen, damit sie wie gewünscht durchsetzbar ist: „Für alle Streitigkeiten sind ausschließlich die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig“.

Bemerkenswert ist jedoch, dass dieselben allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen, wenn sie von einem Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem anderen EU-Land als Italien (z. B. Frankreich) unterzeichnet worden wären, das französische Unternehmen erfolgreich daran gehindert hätten, einen Rechtsstreit in Frankreich anzustrengen, selbst wenn die Gerichtsstandsklausel keine Ausschließlichkeitsbestimmung enthielt.

In Artikel 25 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 heißt es nämlich ausdrücklich, dass die Gerichtsstandsklausel „ausschließlich gilt, sofern die Parteien nichts anderes vereinbart haben“.

Dies wurde auch vom Obersten Gerichtshof Italiens bestätigt (siehe z. B. die Entscheidung Nr. 3624 vom 8.3.2012).

Was geschieht nun, wenn der Vertragspartner des Mailänder Unternehmens ein Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem Nicht-EU-Land ist, das nicht durch internationale Verträge zu diesem Thema gebunden ist? Zum Beispiel ein US-amerikanisches Unternehmen?

Wäre die Klausel „Für alle Streitigkeiten sind die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig“ aus der Sicht eines italienischen Gerichts als ausschließlich anzusehen oder nicht?

Artikel 6 der Verordnung 1215/2012 sollte das italienische Gericht dazu veranlassen, diese Klausel gemäß Artikel 25 derselben Verordnung als ausschließlich auszulegen. In ähnlichen Fällen haben italienische Gerichte in der Vergangenheit solche Klauseln jedoch als nicht ausschließlich angesehen, indem sie die nationalen Vorschriften des internationalen Privatrechts (Art. 4 des Gesetzes 218/95) anwandten und sie im Einklang mit Artikel 29 Absatz 2 der Zivilprozessordnung auslegten (siehe z. B. Tribunale von Mailand, 11.12.1997). Folglich kann in dem oben beschriebenen Fall, wenn das US-Unternehmen trotz der oben genannten Klausel einen Prozess in seinem Land anstrengt, die in den USA erlassene Entscheidung in Italien anerkannt werden.

Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 30.6.2005 über Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen sollte die obigen und andere Probleme lösen, da es (genau wie die europäische Verordnung) festlegt, dass der gewählte Gerichtsstand ausschließlich ist, sofern nicht ausdrücklich etwas anderes vereinbart wird. Allerdings ist dieses Übereinkommen derzeit nur in einer sehr begrenzten Anzahl von Ländern in Kraft (Europäische Union, Mexiko, Singapur).

Wenn man in einer solchen unsicheren Situation möchte, dass der gewählte Gerichtsstand unabhängig vom Sitz der anderen Partei ausschließlich gilt, ist es nach italienischem Recht sicherlich am klügsten, die Ausschließlichkeit in der Klausel festzulegen.

„Besondere Genehmigung“ missbräuchlicher Klauseln (Art. 1341 des Zivilgesetzbuchs)

Eine weitere Voraussetzung für die Durchsetzbarkeit von Gerichtsstandsklauseln nach italienischem Recht ist das Erfordernis einer „besonderen Genehmigung“ solcher Klauseln, wenn sie in allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen enthalten sind. Gemäß Artikel 1341, zweiter Absatz, des Zivilgesetzbuches sind bestimmte Arten von „missbräuchlichen“ Klauseln in allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen nicht durchsetzbar, wenn sie nicht schriftlich „besonders genehmigt“ wurden.  Zu diesen „missbräuchlichen Klauseln“ gehören auch Schieds- und Gerichtsstandsklauseln, wenn sie für die Partei, die die allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen verfasst hat, günstig sind.

Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung unseres Obersten Gerichtshofs erfolgt eine solche „Sondergenehmigung“ in der Praxis durch eine zweite Unterschrift auf dem Vertrag, die eigenständig und getrennt von der Unterschrift sein muss, mit der der Vertrag normalerweise in seiner Gesamtheit genehmigt wird.  Außerdem muss sich diese zweite Genehmigung ausdrücklich auf jede einzelne missbräuchliche Klausel beziehen, indem die Nummer und die Überschrift jeder dieser Klauseln angegeben werden.

Das besondere Genehmigungserfordernis für die Gerichtsstandsklauseln gilt jedoch nur für Verträge zwischen italienischen Parteien, nicht für internationale Verträge.

Insbesondere wenn die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 Anwendung findet, sind die weniger strengen Formvorschriften des Artikels Art. 25  auch dann einzuhalten, wenn die Gerichtsstandsklausel Teil der allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen ist. In einem solchen Fall ist es erforderlich und ausreichend, dass der von den Parteien unterzeichnete Vertrag einen ausdrücklichen Verweis auf die allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen enthält, die die Gerichtsstandsklausel enthalten (siehe z. B. Cass. Sez. Un. 6.4.2017 n.8895). Bei allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen in einem auf elektronischem Wege geschlossenen Kaufvertrag kann eine Gerichtsstandsklausel (ebenfalls gemäß der EU-Verordnung) durch einen „Klick“ wirksam akzeptiert werden (siehe EuGH-Urteil Nr. 322 vom 21.5.2015).

Selbst bei Anwendung der italienischen Vorschriften im internationalen Privatrecht (Art. 4, Gesetz 218/95) – d. h. im Wesentlichen in Angelegenheiten, an denen Parteien aus Nicht-EU-Staaten (oder Nicht-EWR/EFTA-Staaten) beteiligt sind – ist die Bedingung der „besonderen Genehmigung“ für Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen nicht erforderlich, da ein solches Erfordernis in Artikel 4 nicht ausdrücklich vorgesehen ist, und zwar auch nicht im Wege der Auslegung (Verfassungsgericht 18/10/2000, Nr. 428).

Ungeachtet dessen ist jedoch noch nicht endgültig geklärt, ob das Erfordernis der „besonderen Genehmigung“ gemäß Artikel 1341 des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs auch für internationale Verträge (wenn sie italienischem Recht unterliegen) als Voraussetzung für die Durchsetzung anderer Klauseln gelten soll, die in der Rechtsvorschrift als „missbräuchlich“ angesehen werden, wie z. B. Haftungsbeschränkungs- oder -ausschlussklauseln.

Daher ist es in Italien immer noch üblich, auch bei internationalen Verträgen allgemeine Vertragsklauseln zu formulieren, die eine zweite Unterschrift der Gegenpartei zur besonderen Genehmigung der mißbräuchlichen Klauseln vorsehen.

All dies in der Hoffnung, dass die italienische Rechtsprechung in Zukunft einen moderneren und internationaleren Ansatz entwickeln wird.

Summary

By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

Introduction

With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

Scope of application

The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the „size of the parties“: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

Contractual requirements

Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

Recommended activities

The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

  • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
  • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

Summary: Article 44 of Decree Law No. 76 of July 16, 2020 (the so-called „Simplifications Decree„) provides that, until June 30, 2021, capital increases by joint stock companies (società per azioni), limited partnerships by shares (società in accomandita per azioni) and limited liability companies (società a responsabilità limitata) may be approved with the favorable vote of the majority of the share capital represented at the shareholders‘ meeting, provided that at least half of the share capital is present, even if the bylaws establish higher majorities.

The rule has a significant impact on the position of minority shareholders (and investors) of unlisted Italian companies, the protection of which is frequently entrusted (also) to bylaws clauses establishing qualified majorities for the approval of capital increases.

After describing the new rule, some considerations will be made on the consequences and possible safeguards for minority shareholders, limited to unlisted companies.

Simplifications Decree: the reduction of majorities for the approval of capital increases in Italian joint stock companies, limited partnerships by shares and limited liability companies

Article 44 of Decree Law No. 76 of July 16, 2020 (the so-called ‚Simplifications Decree‚)[1] temporarily reduced, until 30.6.2021, the majorities for the approval by the extraordinary shareholders‘ meeting of certain resolutions to increase the share capital.

The rule applies to all companies, including listed ones. It applies to resolutions of the extraordinary shareholders‘ meeting on the following subjects:

  • capital increases through contributions in cash, in kind or in receivables, pursuant to Articles 2439, 2440 and 2441 (regarding joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares), and to Articles 2480, 2481 and 2481-bis of the Italian Civil Code (regarding limited liability companies);
  • the attribution to the directors of the power to increase the share capital, pursuant to Article 2443 (regarding joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares) and to Article 2480 of the Italian Civil Code (regarding limited liability companies).

The ordinary rules provide the following mayorities:

(a)       for joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares: (i) on first call a majority of more than half of the share capital (Art. 2368, second paragraph, Italian Civil Code); (ii) on second call a majority of two thirds of the share capital presented at the meeting (Art. 2369, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code);

(b)       for limited liability companies, a majority of more than half of the share capital (Art. 2479-bis, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code);

(c)       for listed companies, a majority of two thirds of the share capital represents-to in the shareholders‘ meeting (Art. 2368, second paragraph and Art. 2369, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code).

Most importantly, the ordinary rules allow for qualified majorities (i.e., higher than those required by law) in the bylaws.

The temporary provisions of Article 44 of the Simplifications Decree provide that resolutions are approved with the favourable vote of the majority of the share capital represented at the shareholders‘ meeting, provided that at least half of the share capital is present. This majority also applies if the bylaws provide for higher majorities.

Simplifications Decree: the impact of the decrease in majorities for the approval of capital increases on minority shareholders of unlisted Italian companies

The rule has a significant impact on the position of minority shareholders (and investors) in unlisted Italian companies. It can be strongly criticised, particularly because it allows derogations from the higher majorities established in the bylaws, thus affecting ongoing relationships and the governance agreed between shareholders and reflected in the bylaws.

Qualified majorities, higher than the legal ones, for the approval of capital increases are a fundamental protection for minority shareholders (and investors). They are frequently introduced in the bylaws: when the company is set up with several partners, in the context of aggregation transactions, in investment transactions, private equity and venture capital transactions.

Qualified majorities prevent majority shareholders from carrying out transactions without the consent of minority shareholders (or some of them), which have a significant impact on the company and the position of minority shareholders. In fact, capital increases through contributions of assets reduce the minority shareholder’s shareholding percentage and can significantly change the company’s business (e.g. through the contribution of a business). Capital increases in cash force the minority shareholder to choose between further investing in the company or reducing its shareholding.

The reduction in the percentage of participation may imply the loss of important protections, linked to the possession of a participation above a certain threshold. These are not only certain rights provided for by law in favour of minority shareholders[2], but – with even more serious effects – the protections deriving from the qualified majorities provided for in the bylaws to approve certain decisions. The most striking case is that of the qualified majority for resolutions amending the bylaws, so that the amendments cannot be approved without the consent of the minority shareholders (or some of them). This is a fundamental clause, in order to ensure stability for certain provisions of the bylaws, agreed between the shareholders, that protect the minority shareholders, such as: pre-emption and tag-along rights, list voting for the appointment of the board of directors, qualified majorities for the taking of decisions by the shareholders‘ meeting or the board of directors, limits on the powers that can be delegated by the board of directors. Through the capital increase, the majority can obtain a percentage of the shareholding that allows it to amend the bylaws, unilaterally departing from the governance structure agreed with the other shareholders.

The legislator has disregarded all this and has introduced a rule that does not simplify. Rather, it fuels conflicts between the shareholders and undermines legal certainty, thus discouraging investments rather than encouraging them.

Simplifications Decree: checks and safeguards for minority shareholders with respect to the decrease in majorities for the approval of capital increases

In order to assess the situation and the protection of the minority shareholder it is necessary to examine any shareholders‘ agreement in force between the shareholders. The existence of a shareholders‘ agreement will be almost certain in private equity or venture capital transactions or by other professional investors. But outside of these cases there are many companies, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, where the relationships between the shareholders are governed exclusively by the bylaws.

In the shareholders‘ agreement it will have to be verified whether there are clauses binding the shareholders, as parties to the agreement, to approve capital increases by qualified majority, i.e. higher than those required by law. Or whether the agreement make reference to a text of the bylaws (attached or by specific reference) that provides for such a majority, so that compliance with the qualified majority can be considered as an obligation of the parties to the shareholders‘ agreement.

In this case, the shareholders‘ agreement will protect the minority shareholder(s), as Article 44 of the Simplifications Decree does not introduce an exception to the clauses of the shareholders‘ agreement.

The protection offered by the shareholders‘ agreement is strong, but lower than that of the bylaws. The clause in the bylaws requiring a qualified majority binds all shareholders and the company, so the capital increase cannot be validly approved in violation of the bylaws. The shareholders‘ agreement, on the other hand, is only binding between the parties to the agreement, so it does not prevent the company from approving the capital increase, even if the shareholder’s vote violates the obligations of the shareholders‘ agreement. In this case, the other shareholders will be entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the breach of the agreement.

In the absence of a shareholders‘ agreement that binds the shareholders to respect a qualified majority for the approval of the capital increase, the minority shareholder has only the possibility of challenging the resolution to increase the capital, due to abuse of the majority, if the resolution is not justified in the interest of the company and the majority shareholder’s vote pursues a personal interest that is antithetical to the company’s interest, or if it is the instrument of fraudulent activity by the majority shareholders aimed at infringing the rights of minority shareholders[3]. A narrow escape, and a protection certainly insufficient.

[1] The Simplifications Decree was converted into law by Law no. 120 of September 11, 2020. The conversion law replaced art. 44 of the Simplifications Decree, extending the temporary discipline provided therein to capital increases in cash and to capital increases of limited liability companies.

[2] For example: the percentage of 10% (33% for limited liability companies) for the right of shareholders to obtain the call of the meeting (art. 2367; art. 2479 Italian Civil Code); the percentage of 20% (10% for limited liability companies) to prevent the waiver or settlement of the liability action against the directors (art. 2393, sixth paragraph; art. 2476, fifth paragraph, Italian Civil Code); the percentage of 20% for the exercise by the shareholder of the liability action against the directors (art. 2393-bis, Civil Code).

[3] Cass. Civ., 12 December 2005, no. 27387; Trib. Roma, 31 March 2017, no. 6452.

In 2019 the Private Equity and Venture Capital players have invested Euro 7,223 million in 370 transactions in the Italian Market, 26% less than 2018; these are the outcomes released on March 24th by AIFI (Italian Association of Private Equity, Venture Capital e Private Debt).

In this slowing down scenario the spreading of Covid-19 is impacting Private Equity and Venture Capital transactions currently in progress, thus raising implications and alerts that will considerably affect both further capital investments and the legal approach to investments themselves.

Companies spanning a wide range of industries are concerned by Covid-19 health emergency, with diverse impacts on businesses depending on the industry. In this scenario, product companies, direct-to-consumer companies, and retail-oriented businesses appear to be more affected than service, digital, and hi-tech companies. Firms and investors will both need to batten down the hatches, as to minimize the effects of the economic contraction on the on-going investment transactions. In this scenario, investors hypothetically backing off from funding processes represent an issue of paramount concern for start-ups, as these companies are targeted by for VC and PE investments. In that event, the extent of the risk would be dependent upon the investment agreements and share purchase agreements (SPAs) entered into and the term sheets approved by the parties.

MAC/MAE clauses

The right of investors to withdrawal (way out) from a transaction is generally secured by the so-called MAC or MAE clauses – respectively, material adverse change clause or material adverse effect. These clauses, as the case may be and in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, upon the subscription of the agreements, which significantly impact the business or particular variables of the investment, allow investors to decide not to proceed to closing, not to proceed to the subscription and the payment of the share capital increase, when previously resolved, to modify/renegotiate the enterprise value, or to split the proposed investment/acquisition into multiple tranches.

These estimates, in terms of type and potential methods of application of the clauses, usually depend on a number of factors, including the governing law for the agreements – if other than Italian – with this circumstance possibly applying in the case of foreign investors imposing the existing law in their jurisdiction, as the result of their position in the negotiation.

When the enforcement of MAC/MAE clauses leads to the modification/renegotiation of the enterprise value – that is to be lowered – it is advisable to provide for specific contract terms covering calculating mechanisms allowing for smoothly redefining the start-up valuation in the venture capital deals, with the purpose of avoiding any gridlocks that would require further involvement of experts or arbitrators.

In the absence of MAC/MAE clauses and in the case of agreements governed by the Italian law, the Civil Code provides for a contractual clause called ‘supervenient burdensomeness’ (eccessiva onerosità sopravvenuta) of a specific performance (i.e. the investment), with the consequent right for the party whose performance has become excessively burdensome to terminate the contract or to make changes to the contract, with a view to fair and balanced conditions – this solution however implies an inherent degree of complexity and cannot be instantly implemented. In case of agreements governed by foreign laws, it shall be checked whether or not the applicable provisions allow the investor to exit the transaction.

Interim Period clauses

MAC/MAE are generally negotiated when the time expected to closing is medium or long. Similarly, time factors underpin the concept of the Interim Period clauses regulating the business operation in the period between signing and closing, by re-shaping the company’s ordinary scope of business, i.e. introducing maximum expenditure thresholds and providing for the prohibition to execute a variety of transactions, such as capital-related transactions, except when the investors, which shall be entitled to remove these restrictions from time to time, agree otherwise.

It is recommended to ascertain that the Interim Period clauses provide for a possibility to derogate from these restrictions, following prior authorization from the investors, and that said clauses do not require, where this possibility is lacking, for an explicit modification to the provision because of the occurrence of any operational need due to the Covid-19 emergency.

Conditions for closing

The Government actions providing for measures to contain coronavirus have caused several slowdowns that may impact on the facts or events that are considered as preliminary conditions which, when occurring, allow to proceed to closing. Types of such conditions range from authorisations to public entities (i.e. IPs jointly owned with a university), to the achievement of turnover objectives or the completion of precise milestones, that may be negatively affected by the present standstill of companies and bodies. Where these conditions were in fact jeopardised by the events triggered by the Covid-19 outbreak, this would pose important challenges to closing, except where expressly provided that the investor can renounce, with consent to proceed to the investment in all cases. This is without prejudice to the possibility of renegotiating the conditions, in agreement with all the parties.

Future investments: best practice

Covid-19 virus related emergency calls for a change in the best practice of Private Equity and Venture Capital transactions: these should carry out detailed Due diligences on aspects which so far have been under-examined.

This is particularly true for insurance policies covering cases of business interruption resulting from extraordinary and unpredictable events; health insurance plans for employees; risk management procedures in supply chain contracts, especially with foreign counterparts; procedures for smart working and relevant GDPR compliance issues in case of targeted companies based in EU and UK; contingency plans, workplace safety, also in connection with the protocols that ensure ad-hoc policies for in-house work.

Investment protection should therefore also involve MAC/MAE clauses and relevant price adjustment mechanisms, including for the negotiation of contract-related warranties (representation & warranties). A special focus shall be given now, with a different approach, to the companies’ ability to tackle and minimize the risks that may arise from unpredictable events of the same scope as Covid-19, which is now affecting privacy systems, the workforce, the management of supply chain contracts, and the creditworthiness of financing agreements.

This emergency will lead investors to value the investments with even greater attention to information, other than financial ones, about targeted companies.

Indeed, it is mandatory today to gain overview on the resilience of businesses, in terms of structure and capability, when these are challenged by the exogenous variables of the market on the one side, and by the endogenous variables on the other side – to be now understood as part of the global economy.

There is however good news: Venture Capital and Private Equity, like any other ecosystem, will have its own response capacity and manage to gain momentum, as it happened in 2019 when Italy witnessed an unprecedented increase in investments. The relevant stakeholders are already developing coping strategies. Transactions currently in progress are not halted – though slowed down. Indeed, the quarantine does not preclude negotiations or shareholders’ meetings, which are held remotely or by videoconference. This also helps dispel the notion that meetings can only be conducted by getting the parties concerned round the same table.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

Summary – What can the owner (or licensee) of a trademark do if an unauthorized third party resells products with its trademark on an online platform? This issue was addressed in the judgment of C-567/18 of 2 April 2020, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that platforms (Amazon Marketplace, in this case) storing goods which infringe trademark rights are not liable for such infringement, unless the platform puts them on the market or is aware of the infringement. Conversely, platforms (such as Amazon Retail) that contribute to the distribution or resell the products themselves may be liable.

Background

Coty – a German company, distributor of perfumes, holding a licence for the EU trademark “Davidoff” – noted that third-party sellers were offering on Amazon Marketplace perfumes bearing the „Davidoff Hot Water“ brand, which had been put in the EU market without its consent.

After reaching an agreement with one of the sellers, Coty sued Amazon in order to prevent it from storing and shipping those perfumes unless they were placed on the EU market with Coty’s consent. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected Coty’s request, which brought an appeal before the German Court of Cassation, which in turn referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU.

What is the Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trademark

The principle of exhaustion is envisaged by EU law, according to which, once a good is put on the EU market, the proprietor of the trademark right on that specific good can no longer limit its use by third parties.

This principle is effective only if the entry of the good (the reference is to the individual product) on the market is done directly by the right holder, or with its consent (e.g. through an operator holding a licence).

On the contrary, if the goods are placed on the market by third parties without the consent of the proprietor, the latter may – by exercising the trademark rights established by art. 9, par. 3 of EU Regulation 2017/1001 – prohibit the use of the trademark for the marketing of the products.

By the legal proceedings which ended before the Court of Justice of the EU, Coty sought to enforce that right also against Amazon, considering it to be a user of the trademark, and therefore liable for its infringement.

What is the role of Amazon?

The solution of the case revolves around the role of the web platform.

Although Amazon provides users with a unique search engine, it hosts two radically different sales channels. Through the Amazon Retail channel, the customer buys products directly from the Amazon company, which operates as a reseller of products previously purchased from third party suppliers.

The Amazon Marketplace, on the other hand, displays products owned by third-party vendors, so purchase agreements are concluded between the end customer and the vendor. Amazon gets a commission on these transactions, while the vendor assumes the responsibility for the sale and can manage the prices of the products independently.

According to the German courts which rejected Coty’s claims in the first and second instance, Amazon Marketplace essentially acts as a depository, without offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.

Coty, vice versa, argues that Amazon Marketplace, by offering various marketing-services (including: communication with potential customers in order to sell the products; provision of the platform through which customers conclude the contract; and consistent promotion of the products, both on its website and through advertisements on Google), can be considered as a „user“ of the trademark, within the meaning of Article 9, paragraph 3 of EU Regulation 2017/1001.

The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona, in the opinion delivered on 28 November 2019, had suggested to the Court to distinguish between: the mere depositaries of the goods, not to be considered as „users“ of the trademark for the purposes of EU Regulation 2017/1001; and those who – in addition to providing the deposit service – actively participate in the distribution of the goods. These latter, in the light of art. 9, par. 3, letter b) of EU Regulation 2017/1001, should be considered as „users“ of the trademark, and therefore directly responsible in case of infringements.

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany), however, had already partially answered the question when it referred the matter to the European Court, stating that Amazon Marketplace “merely stored the goods concerned, without offering them for sale or putting them on the market”, both operations carried out solely by the vendor.

The EU Court of Justice ruled the case on the basis of some precedents, in which it had already stated that:

  • The expression “using” involves at the very least, the use of the sign in the commercial communication. A person may thus allow its clients to use signs which are identical or similar to trademarks without itself using those signs (see Google vs Louis Vuitton, Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, par. 56).
  • With regard to e-commerce platforms, the use of the sign identical or similar to a trademark is made by the sellers, and not by the platform operator (see L’Oréal vs eBay, C‑324/09, par. 103).
  • The service provider who simply performs a technical part of the production process cannot be qualified as a „user“ of any signs on the final products. (see Frisdranken vs Red Bull, C‑119/10, par. 30. Frisdranken is an undertaking whose main activity is filling cans, supplied by a third party, already bearing signs similar to Redbull’s registered trademarks).

On the basis of that case-law and the qualification of Amazon Marketplace provided by the referring court, the European Court has ruled that a company which, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights, if it is not aware of that infringement and does not offer them for sale or place them on the market, is not making “use” of the trademark and, therefore, is not liable to the proprietor of the rights to that trademark.

Conclusion

After Coty had previously been the subject of a historic ruling on the matter (C-230/16 – link to the Legalmondo previous post), in this case the Court of Justice decision confirmed the status quo, but left the door open for change in the near future.

A few considerations on the judgement, before some practical tips:

  • The Court did not define in positive terms the criteria for assessing whether an online platform performs sufficient activity to be considered as a user of the sign (and therefore liable for any infringement of the registered trademark). This choice is probably dictated by the fact that the criteria laid down could have been applied (including to the various companies belonging to the Amazon group) in a non-homogeneous manner by the various Member States’ national courts, thus jeopardising the uniform application of European law.
  • If the Court of Justice had decided the case the other way around, the ruling would have had a disruptive impact not only on Amazon’s Marketplace, but on all online operators, because it would have made them directly responsible for infringements of IP rights by third parties.
  • If the perfumes in question had been sold through Amazon Retail, there would have been no doubt about Amazon’s responsibility: through this channel, sales are concluded directly between Amazon and the end customer.
  • The Court has not considered whether: (i) Amazon could be held indirectly liable within the meaning of Article 14(1) of EU Directive 2000/31, as a “host” which – although aware of the illegal activity – did not prevent it; (ii) under Article 11 of EU Directive 2004/48, Coty could have acted against Amazon as an intermediary whose services are used by third parties to infringe its IP right. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Amazon may be held (indirectly) liable for the infringements committed, including on the Marketplace: this aspect will have to be examined in detail on a case-by-case basis.

Practical tips

What can the owner (or licensee) of a trademark do if an unauthorized third party resells products with its trademark on an online platform?

  1. Gather as much evidence as possible of the infringement in progress: the proof of the infringement is one of the most problematic aspects of IP litigation.
  2. Contact a specialized lawyer to send a cease-and-desist letter to the unauthorized seller, ordering the removal of the products from the platform and asking the compensation for damages suffered.
  3. If the products are not removed from the marketplace, the trademark owner might take legal action to obtain the removal of the products and compensation for damages.
  4. In light of the judgment in question, the online platforms not playing an active role in the resale of goods remain not directly responsible for IP violations. Nevertheless, it is suggested to consider sending the cease-and-desist letter to them as well, in order to put more pressure on the unauthorised seller.
  5. The sending of the cease-and-desist letter also to the platform – especially in the event of several infringements – may also be useful to demonstrate its (indirect) liability for lack of vigilance, as seen in point 4) of the above list.

Summary – When can the Coronavirus emergency be invoked as a Force Majeure event to avoid contractual liability and compensation for damages? What are the effects on the international supply chain when a Chinese company fails to fulfill its obligations to supply or purchase raw materials, components, or products? What behaviors should foreign entrepreneurs adopt to limit the risks deriving from the interruption of supplies or purchases in the supply chain?

Topics covered

  • The impact of Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the international Supply chain
  • What is Force Majeure?
  • The Force Majeure Contract Clause
  • What is Hardship?
  • Is the Coronavirus a Force Majeure or Hardship event?
  • What is the event reported by the Supplier?
  • Did the Supplier provide evidence of Force Majeure?
  • Does the contract establish a Force Majeure or Hardship clause?
  • What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?
  • How to limit supply chain risks?

The impact of Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the international Supply chain

Coronavirus/Covid 19 has created terrible health and social emergencies in China, which have made exceptional measures of public order necessary for the containment of the virus, like quarantines, travel bans, the suspension of public and private events, and the closure of industrial plants, offices and commercial activities for a certain period of time.

Once the reopening of the plants was authorized, the return to normality was strongly slowed because many workers, who had traveled to other regions in China for the Lunar New Year holiday, did not return to their workplaces.

The current data on the reopening of the factories and the number of staff present are not unambiguous, and it is legitimate to doubt their reliability; therefore, it is not possible to predict when the emergency can be defined as having ended, or if and how Chinese companies will be able to fill the delays and production gaps that have been created.

Certainly, it is very probable that, in the coming months, foreign entrepreneurs will see their Chinese counterparts pleading the impossibility of fulfilling their contracts, with Coronavirus as the reason.

To understand the size of the problem, just consider that in the month of February 2020 alone, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (the Chinese Chamber of Commerce that is tasked with promoting international commerce) at the request of Chinese companies, has already issued 3,325 certificates attesting to the impossibility of fulfilling contractual obligations due to the Coronavirus epidemic, for a total value of more than 270 billion yuan (US $38.4 bn), according to the official Xinhua News Agency.

container

What risks does this situation pose for foreign entrepreneurs, and what consequences can it have beyond Chinese borders?

There are many risks, and the potential damages are enormous: China is the world’s factory, and it currently generates roughly 15% of the world’s GDP. Therefore, it is unlikely that a production chain in any industrial sector does not involve one or more Chinese companies as suppliers of raw materials, semi-finished materials, or components (in the case of Italy, the sectors most integrated with supply chains in China are the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, electronic, and machinery sectors).

Failure to fulfill on the part of the Chinese may, therefore, result in a cascade of non-fulfillments of foreign entrepreneurs towards their end clients or towards the next link in the supply chain.

The fact that the virus is spreading rapidly (at the moment of publication of this article the situation is already critical in some regions in Italy (and in South Korea and Iran), and cases are beginning to be flagged in the USA) furthermore, makes it possible that production stops and quarantine situations similar to those described could also be adopted in regions and industrial sectors of other countries.

To simplify this picture, let us consider the case of a Chinese supplier (Party A) that supplies a component or performs a service for a foreign company (Party B), which in turn assembles (in China or abroad) the components into a semi-finished or final product, that is then resold to third parties (Party C).

operaio

If Party A is late or unable to deliver their product or service to Party B, they risk finding themselves exposed to risks of contract failure versus Party C, and so on along the supply/purchase chain.

Let’s examine how to handle the case in which Party A communicates that it has become impossible to fulfill the contract for reasons related to the Coronavirus emergency, such as in the case of an administrative measure to close the plant, the lack of staff in the factory on reopening, the impossibility of obtaining certain raw materials or components, the blocking of certain logistics services, etc.

In international trade, this situation, i.e. exemption from liability for non-fulfillment of contractual performance, which has become impossible due to events that have occurred outside the sphere of control of the Party, is generally defined as „Force Majeure“.

To understand when it is legitimate for a supplier to invoke the impossibility to fulfill a contract due to the Coronavirus and when instead these actions are unfounded or specious, we must ask ourselves when can Party A invoke Force Majeure and what can Party B do to limit damages and avoid being considered in-breach towards Party C.

What is Force Majeure?

At an international level, a unified concept of Force Majeure doesn’t exist because every different country has established their own specific regulations.

A useful reference is given by the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), ratified by 93 countries (among which are Italy, China, the USA, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, and Mexico) and automatically applicable to sales between companies with seat in contracting states.

Art. 79 of CISG, titled, “Impediment Excusing Party from Damages”, provides that, “A party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.”

The characteristics of the cause of exemption from liability for non-fulfillment are, therefore, its unpredictability, the fact that it is beyond the control of the Party, and the impossibility of taking reasonable steps to avoid or overcome it.

In order to establish, in concrete terms, if the conditions for a Force Majeure event exist, what its consequences are, and how the parties should conduct themselves, it is first necessary to analyze the content of the Force Majeure clause (if any) included in the contract.

The Force Majeure Contract Clause

The model Force Majeure clause used for reference in international commerce is the one prepared by the International Chamber of Commerce, la ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003, which provides the requirements that the party invoking force majeure has the burden of proving (in substance they are those provided by art. 79 of CISG), and it indicates a series of events in which these requirements are presumed to occur (including situations of war, embargoes, acts of terrorism, piracy, natural disasters, general strikes, measures of the authorities).

The ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003 also indicates how the party who invokes the event should behave:

  • Give prompt notice to the other parties of the impediment;
  • In the case in which the impediment will be temporary, promptly communicate to the other parties the end;
  • In the event that the impossibility of the performance derives from the non-fulfillment of a third party (as in the case of a subcontractor) provide proof that the conditions of the Force Majeure also apply to the third supplier;
  • In the event that this shall lead to the loss of interest in the service, promptly communicate the decision to terminate the contract;
  • In the event of termination of the contract, return any service received or an amount of equivalent value.

Given that the parties are free to include in the contract the ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003 or another clause of different content, in the face of a notification of a Force Majeure event, it will, therefore, be necessary, first of all, to analyze what the contractual clause envisages in that specific case.

The second step (or the first, if, in the contract, there is no Force Majeure clause) would then be to verify what the law applicable to the contractual agreement provides (which we will deal with later).

It is also possible that the event indicated by the defaulting party does not lead to the impossibility of the fulfillment of the contract, but makes it excessively burdensome: in this case, you cannot apply Force Majeure, but the assumptions of the so-called Hardship clause could be used.

What is Hardship?

Hardship is another clause that often occurs in international contracts: it regulates the cases in which, after the conclusion of the contract, the performance of one of the parties becomes excessively burdensome or complicated due to events that have occurred, independent of the will of the party.

The outcome of a Hardship event is that of a strong imbalance of the contract in favor of one party. Some textbook examples would be: an unpredictable sharp rise in the price of a raw material, the imposition of duties on the import of a certain product, or the oscillation of the currency beyond a certain range agreed between the parties.

Unlike Force Majeure, in the case of Hardship, performance is still feasible, but it has become excessively onerous.

In this case, the model clause is also that of the ICC Hardship Clause 2003, which provides that Hardship exists if the excessive cost is a consequence of an event outside the party’s reasonable sphere of control, which could not be taken into consideration before the conclusion of the agreement, and whose consequences cannot be reasonably managed.

The ICC Hardship clause stabilizes what happens after a party has proven the existence of a Hardship event, namely:

  • The obligation of the parties, within a reasonable time period, to negotiate an alternative solution to mitigate the effects of the event and bring the agreement into balance (extension of delivery times, renegotiation of the price, etc.);
  • The termination of the contract, in the event that the parties are unable to reach an alternative agreement to mitigate the effects of the Hardship.

Also, when one of the parties invokes a Hardship event, just as we saw before for Force Majeure, it is necessary to verify if the event has been planned in the contract, what the contents of the clause are, and/or what is established by the norms applicable to the contract.

Is the Coronavirus a Force Majeure or Hardship event?

Let’s return to the case we examined at the beginning of the article, and try to see how to manage a case where a supplier internal to an international supply chain defaults when the Coronavirus emergency is invoked as a cause of exemption from liability.

Let’s start by adding that there is no one response valid in all cases, as it is necessary to examine the facts, the contractual agreements between the parties, and the law applicable to the contract. What we can do is indicate the method that can be used in these cases, that is responding to the following questions:

  • The factual situation: what is the event reported by the Supplier?
  • Has the party invoking Force Majeure proven that the requirements exist?
  • What does the Contract (and/or the General Conditions of Contract) provide for?
  • What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?
  • What are the consequences on the obligations of the Parties?

What is the event reported by the Supplier?

As seen, the situation of force majeure exists if, after the conclusion of the contract, the performance becomes impossible due to unforeseeable events beyond the control of the obligated party, the consequences of which cannot be overcome with a reasonable effort.

The first check to be complete is whether the event for which the party invokes the Force Majeure was outside the control of the Party and whether it makes performance of the contract impossible (and not just more complex or expensive) without the Party being able to remedy it.

Let’s look at an example: in the contract, it is expected that Party A must deliver a product to Party B or carry out a service within a certain mandatory deadline (i.e. a non-extendable, non-waivable), after which Party B would no longer be interested in receiving the performance (think, for example, of the delivery of some materials necessary for the construction of an infrastructure for the Olympics).

If delivery is not possible because Party A’s factory was closed due to administrative measures, or because their personnel cannot travel to Party B to complete the installation service, it could be included in the Force Majeure case list.

If instead the service of Party A remains possible (for example with the shipping of products from a different factory in another Chinese region or in another country), and can be completed even if it would be done under more expensive conditions, Force Majeure could not be invoked, and it should be verified whether the event creates the prerequisites for Hardship, with the relative consequences.

Did the Supplier provide evidence of Force Majeure?

The next step is to determine if the Supplier/Party A has provided proof of the events that are prerequisites of Force Majeure. Namely, not being able to have avoided the situation, nor having a reasonable possibility of remedying it.

To that end, the mere production of a CCPIT certificate attesting the impossibility of fulfilling contractual obligations, for the reasons explained above, cannot be considered sufficient to prove the effective existence, in the specific case, of a Force Majeure situation.

The verification of the facts put forward and the related evidence is particularly important because, in the event that a cause for exemption by Party A is believed to exist, this evidence can then be used by Party B to document, in turn, the impossibility of fulfilling their obligations towards Party C, and so on down the supply chain.

mascherine

Does the contract establish a Force Majeure or Hardship clause?

The next step is that of seeing if the contract between the parties, or the general terms and conditions of sale or purchase (if they exist and are applicable), establish a Force Majeure and/or Hardship clause.

If yes, it is necessary to verify if the event reported by the Party invoking Force Majeure falls within those provided for in the contractual clause.

For example, if the reported event was the closure of the factory by order of the authorities and the contractual clause was the ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003, it could be argued that the event falls within those indicated in point 3 [d] or „act of authority“ … compliance with any law or governmental order, rule, regulation or direction, curfew restriction“ or in point 3 [e] „epidemic“ or 3 [g] „general labor disturbance“.

It should then be examined what consequences are provided for in the Clause: generally, responsibility for timely notification of the event is expected, that the party is exempt from performing the service for the duration of the Force Majeure event, and finally, a maximum term of suspension of the obligation, after which, the parties can communicate the termination of the contract.

If the event does not fall among those provided for in the Force Majeure clause, or if there is no such clause in the contract, it should be verified whether a Hardship clause exists and whether the event can be attributed to that prevision.

Finally, it is still necessary to verify what is established by the law applicable to the contract.

What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?

The last step is to verify what the laws applicable to the contract provide, both in the case when the event falls under a Force Majeure or Hardship clause, and when this clause is not present or does not include the event.

The requirements and consequences of Force Majeure or Hardship can be regulated very differently according to the applicable laws.

If Party A and Party B were both based in China, the law of the People’s Republic of China would apply to the sales contract, and the possibility of successfully invoking Force Majeure would have to be assessed by applying these rules.

If instead, Party B were based in Italy, in most cases, the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods would apply to the sales contract (and as previously seen, art.79 “Impediment Excusing Party from Damages”). As far as what is not covered by CISG, the law indicated by the parties in the contract (or in the absence identified by the mechanisms of private international law) would apply.

Similar reasoning should be applied when determining which law are applicable to the contract between Party B and Party C, and what this law provides for, and so on down the international supply chain.

No problems are posed when the various relationships are regulated by the same legislation (for example, the CISG), but as is likely the case, if the applicable laws were different, the situation becomes much more complicated. This is because the same event could be considered a cause for exemption from contractual liability for Party A to Party B, but not in the next step of the supply chain, from Party B to Party C, and so on.

How to limit supply chain risks?

The best way to limit the risk of claims for damages from other companies in the supply chain is to request timely confirmation from your Supplier of their willingness to perform the contractual services according to the established terms, and then to share that information with the other companies that are part of the supply chain.

In the case of non-fulfillment motivated by the Coronavirus emergency, it is essential to verify whether the reported event falls among those that may be a cause of contractual exemption from liability and to require the supplier to provide the relevant evidence. The proof, if it confirms the impossibility of the supplier’s performance, can be used by the buyer, in turn, to invoke Force Majeure towards other companies in the Supply Chain.

If there are Force Majeure/Hardship clauses in the contracts, it would be necessary to examine what they establish in terms of notice of the impossibility to perform, term of suspension of the obligation, consequences of termination of the contract, as well as what the laws applicable to the contracts provide.

Finally, it is important to remember that most laws establish a responsibility of the  non-defaulting party to mitigate damages deriving from the possible non-fulfillment of the other party. This means that if it is probable, or just possible, that the Chinese Supplier will default on a delivery, the purchasing party would then have to do everything possible to remedy it, and in any case, fulfill their obligations towards the other companies that form part of the supply chain; for example by obtaining the product from other suppliers even at greater expense.

One of the most tricky steps in any M&A operation is when the issue of „warranties“, in particular with reference to the economic situation, the balance sheet and the financial position of the company or business (or of a branch), namely the so-called „business warranties„.

On one side, the buyer would like to „ironclad“ his investment by reducing the risk of an unpleasant surprise to a minimum. The seller, by contrast, wishes to provide the least possible warranties, which often translate in a provisory restriction on the full enjoyment of the proceeds; the same may be essential for further investment.

It should be noted, first of all, that the term „warranties“ is usually referred to, in a non-technical acceptation, to a complex set of contractual provisions containing:

  • any seller’s statements about the health of the company or business (or branch of business) being transferred;
  • any compensation obligations undertaken by the seller in case of „violation“ (i.e. mistruth) of the assertions;
  • any remedies provided to ensure the effectiveness of the indemnity obligations entered into.

While there are several reasons why this set is necessary, the most significant one is that in M&A contracts, statutory sale warranties only apply to the good sold; therefore, if the good sold is an equity investment, the warranties do not cover any of the company’s underlying assets; and even as they exceptionally do apply, short terms and strict limitations still justify an ancillary obligation designed to ensure the economic success of the transaction.

As confirmed by current practice, there is not a single M&A agreement that does not include a set of warranties.

In particular, representations typically incorporate the buyer’s due diligence, which for its part usually follows a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to protect any information disclosed.

Any criticalities identified should be properly mentioned. Clearly, wherever a criticality arises, it may not necessarily trigger an indemnity obligation. It will be up to the parties to lay down the rules, as they may also provide that any related risk is to be borne by the buyer; this may be offset by a reduction in the price.

Some aspects of the compensation obligation will have to be carefully negotiated. The main ones are certainly:

  • duration (e.g. longer for tax-related warranties);
  • who is entitled to compensation (the buyer or the company; one or the other as the case may be);
  • any deductions and/or limitations (e.g. tax losses);
  • compensation cap;
  • any possible deductible;
  • the compensation procedure (e.g. application deadlines, settlement procedure, particular circumstances).

These are highly relevant aspects and should by no means be underestimated. As an example, it is obvious that if the compensation procedure is poorly regulated, all the previous efforts are jeopardised.

Finally, suitable measures to ensure an effective protection of the buyer must be provided. Among these, the most conventional tools are:

  • the surety;
  • the “independent contract of guarantee”;
  • the escrow;
  • the deferment of payment;
  • the “earn-out”-scheme;
  • the “price adjustment”;
  • the letter of patronage;
  • the pledge and/or mortgage.

These are more or less widely used instruments, each one with its pros and cons.

At this point, however, we would like to address a new tool with an insurance character, which has been being used recently: the so-called „Warranty & Indemnity Policies„.

With a W&I insurance policy, basically, the insurer assumes the risk resulting from breaches of warranties and indemnities included in an M&A contract upon payment of a premium.

It is obviously a key condition that the violation arose from facts preceding the closing and which were not known at that time (and, therefore, not highlighted by the due diligence carried out).

The insurance policy may be subscribed by the buyer (buyer side) or the seller (seller side). Usually the first option is preferred. These W&I insurance policies come with a number of advantages:

  • a warranty is given even when the seller has been unwilling to commit himself contractually;
  • the insurance policy usually does not provide for any recourse against the seller, other than in the case of malice, so that the seller is fully released;
  • it is also possible to achieve a higher ceiling than that provided for in a purchase agreement;
  • likewise, coverage may be provided for a longer period;
  • it is easier to deal with the seller, especially if there are several and some are still part of the company, perhaps as members of the Board of Directors;
  • compensation procedures become significantly easier, especially in cases where there are multiple sellers, including individuals;
  • the buyer gains a higher certainty of solvency.

The cost of the insurance policy may be shared between the parties, eventually by discounting the purchase price, which the seller may be more willing to grant, considering that he will not be required to issue other warranties and can immediately use the proceeds of the sale.

Premiums are usually set somewhere between 1% and 2% of the compensation limit (with a minimum premium).

Besides the price, which makes the tool mostly suitable for operations of not modest entity, currently, the main limitation seems to be the commonly required deductible, equal to 1% of the Enterprise Value of the Target, which may be reduced to 0.5% in case of higher premiums. Keep in mind that the W&I insurance policy implies a review of the due diligence by the insurance company, which can translate into an actual intervention in the negotiation of the warranties.

Beyond this, this tool needs to be carefully evaluated: facing highly complex scenarios, it could be the ideal solution to solve an impasse in negotiations and make relations between professional investors and SMEs easier.

Christian Montana

Tätigkeitsgebiete

  • Kollisionsrechtlichen
  • Verträge
  • Unternehmen
  • Nachlassplanung
  • Rechtsstreitigkeiten
Kontakt Christian

Distribution Agreements in Mexico

Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

La Fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

Schreiben Sie an Christian





    Legalmondos Datenschutzbestimmungen lesen.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Italy – New rules on unfair trading practices and contractual requirements in the agricultural and food supply chain

    9 Februar 2022

    • Italien
    • Landwirtschaft
    • Verträge

    Zusammenfassung

    Anhand der Geschichte von Nike, die sich aus der Biografie des Gründers Phil Knight ableitet, lassen sich einige Lehren  für internationale Vertriebsverträge ziehen: Wie man den Vertrag aushandelt, die Vertragsdauer festlegt, die Exklusivität und die Geschäftsziele definiert und die richtige Art der Streitschlichtung bestimmt.

    Worüber ich in diesem Artikel spreche

    • Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger und die Geburt von Nike
    • Wie man eine internationale Vertriebsvereinbarung aushandelt
    • Vertragliche Exklusivität in einer Handelsvertriebsvereinbarung
    • Mindestumsatzklauseln in Vertriebsverträgen
    • Vertragsdauer  und Kündigungsfrist
    • Eigentum an Marken in Handelsverträgen
    • Die Bedeutung der Mediation bei internationalen Handelsverträgen
    • Streitbeilegungsklauseln in internationalen Verträgen
    • Wie wir Ihnen helfen können

    Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger und die Geburt von Nike

    Warum ist die berühmteste Sportbekleidungsmarke der Welt Nike und nicht Onitsuka Tiger?
    Die Biographie des Nike-Schöpfers Phil Knight mit dem Titel “Shoe Dog” gibt hierauf antworten und ist nicht nur für Liebhaber des Genres eine absolut empfehlenswerte Lektüre.

    Bewegt von seiner Leidenschaft für den Laufsport und seiner Intuition, dass es auf dem amerikanischen Sportschuhmarkt, der damals von Adidas dominiert wurde, eine Lücke gab, importierte Knight 1964 als erster überhaupt eine japanische Sportschuhmarke, Onitsuka Tiger, in die USA.  Mit diesen Sportschuhen konnte sich Knight innerhalb von 6 Jahren einen Marktanteil von satten 70 % sichern.

    Das von Knight und seinem ehemaligen College-Trainer Bill Bowerman gegründete Unternehmen hieß damals noch Blue Ribbon Sports.

    Die Geschäftsbeziehung zwischen Blue Ribbon-Nike und dem japanischen Hersteller Onitsuka Tiger  gestaltete sich trotz der sehr guten Verkaufszahlen und den postiven Wachstumsaussichten von  Beginn an als sehr turbulent.

    Als Knight dann kurz nach der Vertragsverlängerung mit dem japanischen Hersteller erfuhr, dass Onitsuka in den USA nach einem anderen Vertriebspartner Ausschau hielt , beschloss Knight  – aus Angst, vom Markt ausgeschlossen zu  werden –  sich seinerseits mit einem anderen japanischen Lieferanten zusammenzutun und seine eigene Marke zu gründen. Damit war die spätere Weltmarke Nike geboren.

    shoes

    Als der japanische Hersteller Onitsuka von dem Nike-Projekt erfuhr, verklagte dieser  Blue Ribbon wegen  Verstoß gegen das Wettbewerbsverbot,  welches dem Vertriebshändler die Einfuhr anderer in Japan hergestellter Produkte untersagte, und beendete die Geschäftsbeziehung mit sofortiger Wirkung.

    Blue Ribbon führte hiergegen an, dass der Verstoß von dem Hersteller Onitsuka Tiger ausging, der  sich bereits als der Vertrag noch in Kraft war und die Geschäfte mehr als gut liefen mit anderen potenziellen Vertriebshändlern getroffen hatte.

    Diese Auseinandersetzung führte zu zwei Gerichtsverfahren, eines in Japan und eines in den USA, die der Geschichte von Nike ein vorzeitiges Ende hätten setzen können.

    Zum Glück (für Nike) entschied der amerikanische Richter zu Gunsten des Händlers und der Streit wurde mit einem Vergleich beendet: Damit begann für Nike die Reise, die sie 15 Jahre später zur wichtigsten Sportartikelmarke der Welt machen sollte.

    Wir werden sehen, was uns die Geschichte von Nike lehrt und welche Fehler bei einem internationalen Vertriebsvertrag tunlichst vermieden werden sollten.

    Wie verhandelt man eine internationale Handelsvertriebsvereinbarung?

    In seiner Biografie schreibt Knight, dass er bald bedauerte, die Zukunft seines Unternehmens an eine eilig verfasste, wenige Zeilen umfassende Handelsvereinbarung gebunden zu haben, die am Ende einer Sitzung zur Aushandlung der Erneuerung des Vertriebsvertrags geschlossen wurde.

    Was beinhaltete diese Vereinbarung?

    Die Vereinbarung sah lediglich die Verlängerung des Rechts von Blue Ribbon vor, die Produkte in den USA exklusiv zu vertreiben, und zwar für weitere drei Jahre.

    In der Praxis kommt es  häufig vor, dass sich internationale Vertriebsverträge auf mündliche Vereinbarungen oder sehr einfache Vertragswerke mit kurzer Dauer beschränken. Die übliche Erklärung dafür ist, dass es auf diese Weise möglich ist, die Geschäftsbeziehung zu testen, ohne die vertragliche Bindung zu eng werden zu lassen.

    Diese Art, Geschäfte zu machen, ist jedoch nicht zu empfehlen  und kann sogar gefährlich werden: Ein  Vertrag sollte niemals  als Last oder Zwang angesehen werden, sondern als Garantie für die Rechte beider Parteien. Einen schriftlichen Vertrag nicht oder nur sehr übereilt abzuschließen, bedeutet, grundlegende Elemente der künftigen Beziehung, wie die, die zum Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger führten, ohne klare Vereinbarungen zu belassen: Hierzu gehören Aspekte wie Handelsziele, Investitionen, das Eigentum an Marken – um nur einige zu benennen.

    Handelt es sich zudem um einen internationalen Vertrag, ist die Notwendigkeit einer vollständigen und ausgewogenen Vereinbarung noch größer, da in Ermangelung von Vereinbarungen zwischen den Parteien oder in Ergänzung zu diesen Vereinbarungen ein Recht zur Anwendung kommt, mit dem eine der Parteien nicht vertraut ist, d. h. im Allgemeinen das Recht des Landes, in dem der Händler seinen Sitz hat.

    Auch wenn Sie sich nicht in einer Blue-Ribbon-Situation befinden, in der es sich um einen Vertrag handelt, von dem die Existenz des Unternehmens abhängt, sollten internationale Verträge stets mit Hilfe eines fachkundigen Anwalts besprochen und ausgehandelt werden, der das auf den Vertrag anwendbare Recht kennt und dem Unternehmer helfen kann, die wichtigen Vertragsklauseln zu ermitteln und auszuhandeln.

    Territoriale Exklusivität, kommerzielle Ziele und Mindestumsatzziele

    Anlass für den Konflikt zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger war zunächst einmal die Bewertung der Absatzentwicklung auf dem US-Markt.

    Onitsuka argumentierte, dass der Umsatz unter dem Potenzial des US-Marktes liege, während nach Angaben von Blue Ribbon die Verkaufsentwicklung sehr positiv sei, da sich der Umsatz bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt jedes Jahr verdoppelt habe und ein bedeutender Anteil des Marktsektors erobert worden sei.

    Als Blue Ribbon erfuhr, dass Onituska andere Kandidaten für den Vertrieb seiner Produkte in den USA prüfte, und befürchtete, damit bald vom Markt verdrängt zu werden , bereitete Blue Ribbon die Marke Nike als Plan B vor: Als der  japanische Hersteller diese Marke entdeckte , kam es zu einem Rechtsstreit zwischen den Parteien, der zu einem Eklat führte.

    Der Streit hätte vielleicht vermieden werden können, wenn sich die Parteien auf kommerzielle Ziele geeinigt hätten und der Vertrag eine in Alleinvertriebsvereinbarungen übliche Klausel enthalten hätte, d.h. ein Mindestabsatzziel für den Vertriebshändler.

    In einer Alleinvertriebsvereinbarung gewährt der Hersteller dem Händler einen starken Gebietsschutz für die Investitionen, die der Händler zur Erschließung des zugewiesenen Marktes tätigt.

    Um dieses  Zugeständnis der Exklusivität auszugleichen, ist es üblich, dass der Hersteller vom Vertriebshändler einen so genannten garantierten Mindestumsatz oder ein Mindestziel verlangt, das der Vertriebshändler jedes Jahr erreichen muss, um den ihm gewährten privilegierten Status zu behalten.

    Für den Fall, dass das Mindestziel nicht erreicht wird, sieht der Vertrag dann in der Regel vor, dass der Hersteller das Recht hat, vom Vertrag zurückzutreten (bei einem unbefristeten Vertrag) oder den Vertrag nicht zu verlängern (bei einem befristeten Vertrag) oder aber auch die Gebietsexklusivität aufzuheben bzw.  einzuschränken.

    Der Vertrag zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger sah derartige  Zielvorgaben nicht vor – und das nachdem er gerade erst um drei Jahre verlängert wurde. Hinzukam, dass sich die Parteien bei der Bewertung der Ergebnisse des Vertriebshändlers nicht einig waren. Es stellt sich daher die Frage: Wie können in einem Mehrjahresvertrag Mindestumsatzziele vorgesehen werden?

    In Ermangelung zuverlässiger Daten verlassen sich die Parteien häufig auf vorher festgelegte prozentuale Erhöhungsmechanismen: + 10 % im zweiten Jahr, + 30 % im dritten Jahr, + 50 % im vierten Jahr und so weiter.

    Das Problem bei diesem Automatismus ist, dass dadurch  Zielvorgaben vereinbart werden, die nicht auf tatsächlichen Daten über die künftige Entwicklung der Produktverkäufe, der Verkäufe der Wettbewerber und des Marktes im Allgemeinen basieren , und die daher sehr weit von den aktuellen Absatzmöglichkeiten des Händlers entfernt sein können.

    So wäre beispielsweise die Anfechtung des Vertriebsunternehmens wegen Nichterfüllung der Zielvorgaben für das zweite oder dritte Jahr in einer rezessiven Wirtschaft sicherlich eine fragwürdige Entscheidung, die wahrscheinlich zu Meinungsverschiedenheiten führen würde.

    Besser wäre eine Klausel, mit der Ziele von Jahr zu Jahr einvernehmlich festgelegt werden. Diese besagt, dass die Ziele zwischen den Parteien unter Berücksichtigung der Umsatzentwicklung in den vorangegangenen Monaten und mit einer gewissen Vorlaufzeit vor Ende des laufenden Jahres vereinbart werden.  Für den Fall, dass keine Einigung über die neue Zielvorgabe zustande kommt, kann der Vertrag vorsehen, dass die Zielvorgabe des Vorjahres angewandt wird oder dass die Parteien das Recht haben, den Vertrag unter Einhaltung einer bestimmten Kündigungsfrist zu kündigen.

    Andererseits kann die Zielvorgabe auch als Anreiz für den Vertriebshändler dienen: So kann z. B. vorgesehen werden, dass bei Erreichen eines bestimmten Umsatzes die Vereinbarung erneuert, die Gebietsexklusivität verlängert oder ein bestimmter kommerzieller Ausgleich für das folgende Jahr gewährt wird.

    Eine letzte Empfehlung ist die korrekte Handhabung der Mindestzielklausel, sofern sie im Vertrag enthalten ist: Es kommt häufig vor, dass der Hersteller die Erreichung des Ziels für ein bestimmtes Jahr bestreitet, nachdem die Jahresziele über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg nicht erreicht oder nicht aktualisiert wurden, ohne dass dies irgendwelche Konsequenzen hatte.

    In solchen Fällen ist es möglich, dass der Händler behauptet, dass ein impliziter Verzicht auf diesen vertraglichen Schutz vorliegt und der Widerruf daher nicht gültig ist: Um Streitigkeiten zu diesem Thema zu vermeiden, ist es ratsam, in der Mindestzielklausel ausdrücklich vorzusehen, dass die unterbliebene Anfechtung des Nichterreichens des Ziels während eines bestimmten Zeitraums nicht bedeutet, dass auf das Recht, die Klausel in Zukunft zu aktivieren, verzichtet wird.

    Die Kündigungsfrist für die Beendigung eines internationalen Vertriebsvertrags

    Der andere Streitpunkt zwischen den Parteien war die Verletzung eines Wettbewerbsverbots: Blue Ribbon verkaufte die Marke Nike , obwohl der Vertrag den Verkauf anderer in Japan hergestellter Schuhe untersagte.

    Onitsuka Tiger behauptete, Blue Ribbon habe gegen das Wettbewerbsverbot verstoßen, während der Händler die Ansicht vertrat , dass er angesichts der bevorstehenden Entscheidung des Herstellers, die Vereinbarung zu kündigen, keine andere Wahl hatte.

    Diese Art von Streitigkeiten kann vermieden werden, indem für die Beendigung (oder Nichtverlängerung) eine klare Kündigungsfrist festgelegt wird: Diese Frist hat die grundlegende Funktion, den Parteien die Möglichkeit zu geben, sich auf die Beendigung der Beziehung vorzubereiten und ihre Aktivitäten nach der Beendigung neu zu organisieren.

    Um insbesondere Streitigkeiten wie die zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger zu vermeiden, kann in einem internationalen Vertriebsvertrag vorgesehen werden, dass die Parteien während  der Kündigungsfristmit anderen potenziellen Vertriebshändlern und Herstellern in Kontakt treten können und dass dies nicht gegen die Ausschließlichkeits- und Wettbewerbsverpflichtungen verstößt.

    Im Fall von Blue Ribbon war der Händler über die bloße Suche nach einem anderen Lieferanten hinaus sogar noch einen Schritt weiter gegangen, da er begonnen hatte, Nike-Produkte zu verkaufen, während der Vertrag mit Onitsuka noch gültig war. Dieses Verhalten stellt einen schweren Verstoß gegen  die getroffene Ausschließlichkeitsvereinbarung dar.

    Ein besonderer Aspekt, der bei der Kündigungsfrist zu berücksichtigen ist, ist die Dauer: Wie lang muss die Kündigungsfrist sein, um als fair zu gelten? Bei langjährigen Geschäftsbeziehungen ist es wichtig, der anderen Partei genügend Zeit einzuräumen, um sich auf dem Markt neu zu positionieren, nach alternativen Vertriebshändlern oder Lieferanten zu suchen oder (wie im Fall von Blue Ribbon/Nike) eine eigene Marke zu schaffen und einzuführen.

    Ein weiteres Element, das bei der Mitteilung der Kündigung zu berücksichtigen ist, besteht darin, dass die Kündigungsfrist so bemessen sein muss, dass der Vertriebshändler die zur Erfüllung seiner Verpflichtungen während der Vertragslaufzeit getätigten Investitionen amortisieren kann; im Fall von Blue Ribbon hatte der Vertriebshändler auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch des Herstellers eine Reihe von Einmarkengeschäften sowohl an der West- als auch an der Ostküste der USA eröffnet.

    Eine Kündigung des Vertrags kurz nach seiner Verlängerung und mit einer zu kurzen Vorankündigung hätte es dem Vertriebshändler nicht erlaubt, das Vertriebsnetz mit einem Ersatzprodukt neu zu organisieren, was die Schließung der Geschäfte, die die japanischen Schuhe bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt verkauft hatten, erzwungen hätte.

    tiger

    Im Allgemeinen ist es ratsam, eine Kündigungsfrist von mindestens 6 Monaten vorzusehen. Bei internationalen Vertriebsverträgen sollten jedoch neben den von den Parteien getätigten Investitionen auch etwaige spezifische Bestimmungen des auf den Vertrag anwendbaren Rechts (hier z. B. eine eingehende Analyse der plötzlichen Kündigung von Verträgen in Frankreich) oder die Rechtsprechung zum Thema Rücktritt von Geschäftsbeziehungen beachtet werden (in einigen Fällen kann die für einen langfristigen Vertriebskonzessionsvertrag als angemessen erachtete Frist 24 Monate betragen).

    Schließlich ist es normal, dass der Händler zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses noch im Besitz von Produktvorräten ist: Dies kann problematisch sein, da der Händler in der Regel die Vorräte auflösen möchte (Blitzverkäufe oder Verkäufe über Internetkanäle mit starken Rabatten), was der Geschäftspolitik des Herstellers und der neuen Händler zuwiderlaufen kann.

    Um diese Art von Situation zu vermeiden, kann in den Vertriebsvertrag eine Klausel aufgenommen werden, die das Recht des Herstellers auf Rückkauf der vorhandenen Bestände bei Vertragsende regelt, wobei der Rückkaufpreis bereits festgelegt ist (z. B. in Höhe des Verkaufspreises an den Händler für Produkte der laufenden Saison, mit einem Abschlag von 30 % für Produkte der vorangegangenen Saison und mit einem höheren Abschlag für Produkte, die mehr als 24 Monate zuvor verkauft wurden).

    Markeninhaberschaft in einer internationalen Vertriebsvereinbarung

    Im Laufe der Vertriebsbeziehung hatte Blue Ribbon eine neuartige Sohle für Laufschuhe entwickelt und die Marken Cortez und Boston für die Spitzenmodelle der Kollektion geprägt, die beim Publikum sehr erfolgreich waren und große Popularität erlangten: Bei Vertragsende beanspruchten nun beide Parteien das Eigentum an den Marken.

    Derartige Situationen treten häufig in internationalen Vertriebsbeziehungen auf: Der Händler lässt die Marke des Herstellers in dem Land, in dem er tätig ist, registrieren, um Konkurrenten daran zu hindern, dies zu tun, und um die Marke im Falle des Verkaufs gefälschter Produkte schützen zu können; oder es kommt vor, dass der Händler, wie in dem hier behandelten Streitfall, an der Schaffung neuer, für seinen Markt bestimmter Marken mitwirkt.

    Am Ende der Geschäftsbeeziehung, wenn keine klare Vereinbarung zwischen den Parteien vorliegt, kann es zu einem Streit wie im Fall Nike kommen: Wer ist der Eigentümer der Marke – der Hersteller oder der Händler?

    tiger

    Um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden, ist es ratsam, die Marke in allen Ländern zu registrieren, in denen die Produkte vertrieben werden, und nicht nur dort: Im Falle Chinas zum Beispiel ist es ratsam, die Marke auch dann zu registrieren, wenn sie dort nicht vertreiben wird, um zu verhindern, dass Dritte die Marke in böser Absicht übernehmen (weitere Informationen finden Sie in diesem Beitrag auf Legalmondo).

    Es ist auch ratsam, in den Vertriebsvertrag eine Klausel aufzunehmen, die dem Händler die Eintragung der Marke (oder ähnlicher Marken) in dem Land, in dem er tätig ist, untersagt und dem Hersteller ausdrücklich das Recht einräumt, die Übertragung der Marke zu verlangen, falls dies dennoch geschieht.

    Eine solche Klausel hätte die Entstehung des Rechtsstreits zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger verhindert.

    Der von uns geschilderte Sachverhalt stammt aus dem Jahr 1976: Heutzutage ist es ratsam, im Vertrag nicht nur die Eigentumsverhältnisse an der Marke und die Art und Weise der Nutzung durch den Händler und sein Vertriebsnetz zu klären, sondern auch die Nutzung der Marke wie auch der Unterscheidungszeichen des Herstellers in den Kommunikationskanälen, insbesondere in den sozialen Medien, zu regeln.

    Es ist ratsam, eindeutig festzulegen, dass niemand anderes als der Hersteller Eigentümer der Social-Media-Profile wie auch der erstellten Inhalte und der Daten ist, die durch die Verkaufs-, Marketing- und Kommunikationsaktivitäten in dem Land, in dem der Händler tätig ist, generiert werden, und dass er nur die Lizenz hat, diese gemäß den Anweisungen des Eigentümers zu nutzen.

    Darüber hinaus ist es sinnvoll, in der Vereinbarung festzulegen, wie die Marke verwendet wird und welche Kommunikations- und Verkaufsförderungsmaßnahmen auf dem Markt ergriffen werden, um Initiativen zu vermeiden, die negative oder kontraproduktive Auswirkungen haben könnten.

    Die Klausel kann auch durch die Festlegung von Vertragsstrafen für den Fall verstärkt werden, dass sich der Händler bei Vertragsende weigert, die Kontrolle über die digitalen Kanäle und die im Rahmen der Geschäftstätigkeit erzeugten Daten zu übertragen.

    Mediation in internationalen Handelsverträgen

    Ein weiterer interessanter Punkt, der sich am  Fall Blue Ribbon vs. Onitsuka Tiger erläutern lässt , steht im Zusammenhang mit der Bewältigung von Konflikten in internationalen Vertriebsbeziehungen: Situationen wie die, die wir gesehen haben, können durch den Einsatz von Mediation effektiv gelöst werden.

    Dabei handelt es sich um einen Schlichtungsversuch, mit dem ein spezialisiertes Gremium oder ein Mediator betraut wird, um eine gütliche Einigung zu erzielen und ein Gerichtsverfahren zu vermeiden.

    Die Mediation kann im Vertrag als erster Schritt vor einem eventuellen Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahren vorgesehen sein oder sie kann freiwillig im Rahmen eines bereits laufenden Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahrens eingeleitet werden.

    Die Vorteile sind vielfältig: Der wichtigste ist die Möglichkeit, eine wirtschaftliche  Lösung zu finden, die die Fortsetzung der Beziehung ermöglicht, anstatt nur nach Wegen zur Beendigung der Geschäftsbeziehung zwischen den Parteien zu suchen.

    Ein weiterer interessanter Aspekt der Mediation ist die Überwindung von persönlichen Konflikten: Im Fall Blue Ribbon vs. Onitsuka zum Beispiel war ein entscheidendes Element für die Eskalation der Probleme zwischen den Parteien die schwierige persönliche Beziehung zwischen dem CEO von Blue Ribbon und dem Exportmanager des japanischen Herstellers, die durch starke kulturelle Unterschiede verschärft wurde.

    Der Mediationsprozess führt eine dritte Person ein, die in der Lage ist, einen Dialog mit den Parteien zu führen und sie bei der Suche nach Lösungen von gegenseitigem Interesse zu unterstützen, was entscheidend sein kann, um Kommunikationsprobleme oder persönliche Feindseligkeiten zu überwinden.

    Für alle, die sich für dieses Thema interessieren, verweisen wir auf den hierzu verfassten  Beitrag auf Legalmondo sowie  auf die Aufzeichnung eines kürzlich durchgeführten Webinars zur Mediation internationaler Konflikte.

    Streitbeilegungsklauseln in internationalen Vertriebsvereinbarungen

    Der Streit zwischen Blue Ribbon und Onitsuka Tiger führte dazu, dass die Parteien zwei parallele Gerichtsverfahren einleiteten, eines in den USA (durch den  Händler) und eines in Japan (durch den  Hersteller).

    Dies war nur deshalb  möglich, weil der Vertrag nicht ausdrücklich vorsah, wie etwaige künftige Streitigkeiten beigelegt werden sollten.  In der Konsequenz führte dies zu einer prozessual sehr komplizierten Situation mit gleich zwei gerichtlichen Fronten in verschiedenen Ländern.

    Die Klauseln, die festlegen, welches Recht auf einen Vertrag anwendbar ist und wie Streitigkeiten beigelegt werden, werden in der Praxis als „Mitternachtsklauseln“ bezeichnet, da sie oft die letzten Klauseln im Vertrag sind, die spät in der Nacht ausgehandelt werden.

    Es handelt sich hierbei  um sehr wichtige Klauseln, die bewusst gewählt  werden müssen, um unwirksame oder kontraproduktive Lösungen zu vermeiden.

    Wie wir Ihnen helfen können

    Der Abschluss eines internationalen Handelsvertriebsvertrags ist eine wichtige Investition, denn er regelt die vertragliche Beziehungen zwischen den Parteien verbindlich für die Zukunft  und gibt ihnen die Instrumente an die Hand, um alle Situationen zu bewältigen, die sich aus der künftigen Zusammenarbeit ergeben werden.

    Es ist nicht nur wichtig, eine korrekte, vollständige und ausgewogene Vereinbarung auszuhandeln und abzuschließen, sondern auch zu wissen, wie sie im Laufe der Jahre zu handhaben ist, vor allem, wenn Konfliktsituationen auftreten.

    Legalmondo bietet Ihnen die Möglichkeit, mit Anwälten zusammenzuarbeiten, die in mehr als 60 Ländern Erfahrung im internationalen Handelsvertrieb haben:  Bei bestehendem Beratungsbedarf schreiben Sie uns.

    Nach italienischem Recht steht es den Vertragsparteien – die beide juristische Personen des Privatrechts sind – im Allgemeinen frei, das zuständige Gericht für Streitigkeiten aus einem solchen Vertrag zu vereinbaren.

    Obwohl solche Klauseln gültig sind, kann ihre Durchsetzbarkeit durch bestimmte formale Anforderungen eingeschränkt werden, die berücksichtigt werden sollten.

    Seltsamerweise sind diese Anforderungen oft strenger, wenn beide Parteien in Italien ansässig sind, und lockerer, wenn eine der Parteien im Ausland, insbesondere in einem anderen EU-Land, ansässig ist.

    In Anbetracht der derzeitigen Unsicherheiten in der Rechtsprechung ist jedoch in jedem Fall ein vorsichtiges Vorgehen bei der Vertragsgestaltung gerechtfertigt.

    Exklusives oder nicht exklusives Forum?

    Nehmen wir zum Beispiel die folgende Klausel in einem Handelsvertrag zwischen zwei Privatunternehmen: „Zuständiges Gericht – Für alle Streitigkeiten sind die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig„.

    Diese Klausel ist offensichtlich unbedenklich. Sie wurde jedoch vor kurzem vom italienischen Obersten Gerichtshof („Corte di Cassazione“) für nicht durchsetzbar erklärt, insbesondere unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Nichtexklusivität (Oberster Gerichtshof, Zivilabteilung (Cass. Civ. Sez.) VI-3, Beschluss vom 25.1.2018, Nr. 1838).

    In diesem Fall ließ ein italienisches Unternehmen die andere Partei (ein anderes italienisches Unternehmen) seine allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen unterzeichnen, die die oben genannte Klausel enthielten. Ungeachtet dessen wurde dem ersten Unternehmen ein Zahlungsbefehl („decreto ingiuntivo“) des Gerichts von Siena zugestellt, wo das zweite Unternehmen trotz der Zustimmung zur Gerichtsstandsklausel Klage erhoben hatte.

    Das erste Unternehmen konnte sich nicht erfolgreich gegen den Zahlungsbefehl wehren, indem es das Argument der Unzuständigkeit des Gerichts von Siena anführte. Es konnte nämlich die in seinen allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen enthaltene Gerichtsstandsklausel nicht durchsetzen, da in der Klausel nicht festgelegt war, dass die Gerichte von Mailand der „ausschließliche“ Gerichtsstand sind.

    Nach Ansicht unseres Obersten Gerichtshofs (der damit seine eigene frühere Rechtsprechung bestätigte) hätte diese Klausel daher lauten müssen, damit sie wie gewünscht durchsetzbar ist: „Für alle Streitigkeiten sind ausschließlich die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig“.

    Bemerkenswert ist jedoch, dass dieselben allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen, wenn sie von einem Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem anderen EU-Land als Italien (z. B. Frankreich) unterzeichnet worden wären, das französische Unternehmen erfolgreich daran gehindert hätten, einen Rechtsstreit in Frankreich anzustrengen, selbst wenn die Gerichtsstandsklausel keine Ausschließlichkeitsbestimmung enthielt.

    In Artikel 25 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 heißt es nämlich ausdrücklich, dass die Gerichtsstandsklausel „ausschließlich gilt, sofern die Parteien nichts anderes vereinbart haben“.

    Dies wurde auch vom Obersten Gerichtshof Italiens bestätigt (siehe z. B. die Entscheidung Nr. 3624 vom 8.3.2012).

    Was geschieht nun, wenn der Vertragspartner des Mailänder Unternehmens ein Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem Nicht-EU-Land ist, das nicht durch internationale Verträge zu diesem Thema gebunden ist? Zum Beispiel ein US-amerikanisches Unternehmen?

    Wäre die Klausel „Für alle Streitigkeiten sind die Gerichte von Mailand zuständig“ aus der Sicht eines italienischen Gerichts als ausschließlich anzusehen oder nicht?

    Artikel 6 der Verordnung 1215/2012 sollte das italienische Gericht dazu veranlassen, diese Klausel gemäß Artikel 25 derselben Verordnung als ausschließlich auszulegen. In ähnlichen Fällen haben italienische Gerichte in der Vergangenheit solche Klauseln jedoch als nicht ausschließlich angesehen, indem sie die nationalen Vorschriften des internationalen Privatrechts (Art. 4 des Gesetzes 218/95) anwandten und sie im Einklang mit Artikel 29 Absatz 2 der Zivilprozessordnung auslegten (siehe z. B. Tribunale von Mailand, 11.12.1997). Folglich kann in dem oben beschriebenen Fall, wenn das US-Unternehmen trotz der oben genannten Klausel einen Prozess in seinem Land anstrengt, die in den USA erlassene Entscheidung in Italien anerkannt werden.

    Das Haager Übereinkommen vom 30.6.2005 über Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen sollte die obigen und andere Probleme lösen, da es (genau wie die europäische Verordnung) festlegt, dass der gewählte Gerichtsstand ausschließlich ist, sofern nicht ausdrücklich etwas anderes vereinbart wird. Allerdings ist dieses Übereinkommen derzeit nur in einer sehr begrenzten Anzahl von Ländern in Kraft (Europäische Union, Mexiko, Singapur).

    Wenn man in einer solchen unsicheren Situation möchte, dass der gewählte Gerichtsstand unabhängig vom Sitz der anderen Partei ausschließlich gilt, ist es nach italienischem Recht sicherlich am klügsten, die Ausschließlichkeit in der Klausel festzulegen.

    „Besondere Genehmigung“ missbräuchlicher Klauseln (Art. 1341 des Zivilgesetzbuchs)

    Eine weitere Voraussetzung für die Durchsetzbarkeit von Gerichtsstandsklauseln nach italienischem Recht ist das Erfordernis einer „besonderen Genehmigung“ solcher Klauseln, wenn sie in allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen enthalten sind. Gemäß Artikel 1341, zweiter Absatz, des Zivilgesetzbuches sind bestimmte Arten von „missbräuchlichen“ Klauseln in allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen nicht durchsetzbar, wenn sie nicht schriftlich „besonders genehmigt“ wurden.  Zu diesen „missbräuchlichen Klauseln“ gehören auch Schieds- und Gerichtsstandsklauseln, wenn sie für die Partei, die die allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen verfasst hat, günstig sind.

    Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung unseres Obersten Gerichtshofs erfolgt eine solche „Sondergenehmigung“ in der Praxis durch eine zweite Unterschrift auf dem Vertrag, die eigenständig und getrennt von der Unterschrift sein muss, mit der der Vertrag normalerweise in seiner Gesamtheit genehmigt wird.  Außerdem muss sich diese zweite Genehmigung ausdrücklich auf jede einzelne missbräuchliche Klausel beziehen, indem die Nummer und die Überschrift jeder dieser Klauseln angegeben werden.

    Das besondere Genehmigungserfordernis für die Gerichtsstandsklauseln gilt jedoch nur für Verträge zwischen italienischen Parteien, nicht für internationale Verträge.

    Insbesondere wenn die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 Anwendung findet, sind die weniger strengen Formvorschriften des Artikels Art. 25  auch dann einzuhalten, wenn die Gerichtsstandsklausel Teil der allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen ist. In einem solchen Fall ist es erforderlich und ausreichend, dass der von den Parteien unterzeichnete Vertrag einen ausdrücklichen Verweis auf die allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen enthält, die die Gerichtsstandsklausel enthalten (siehe z. B. Cass. Sez. Un. 6.4.2017 n.8895). Bei allgemeinen Vertragsbedingungen in einem auf elektronischem Wege geschlossenen Kaufvertrag kann eine Gerichtsstandsklausel (ebenfalls gemäß der EU-Verordnung) durch einen „Klick“ wirksam akzeptiert werden (siehe EuGH-Urteil Nr. 322 vom 21.5.2015).

    Selbst bei Anwendung der italienischen Vorschriften im internationalen Privatrecht (Art. 4, Gesetz 218/95) – d. h. im Wesentlichen in Angelegenheiten, an denen Parteien aus Nicht-EU-Staaten (oder Nicht-EWR/EFTA-Staaten) beteiligt sind – ist die Bedingung der „besonderen Genehmigung“ für Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen nicht erforderlich, da ein solches Erfordernis in Artikel 4 nicht ausdrücklich vorgesehen ist, und zwar auch nicht im Wege der Auslegung (Verfassungsgericht 18/10/2000, Nr. 428).

    Ungeachtet dessen ist jedoch noch nicht endgültig geklärt, ob das Erfordernis der „besonderen Genehmigung“ gemäß Artikel 1341 des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs auch für internationale Verträge (wenn sie italienischem Recht unterliegen) als Voraussetzung für die Durchsetzung anderer Klauseln gelten soll, die in der Rechtsvorschrift als „missbräuchlich“ angesehen werden, wie z. B. Haftungsbeschränkungs- oder -ausschlussklauseln.

    Daher ist es in Italien immer noch üblich, auch bei internationalen Verträgen allgemeine Vertragsklauseln zu formulieren, die eine zweite Unterschrift der Gegenpartei zur besonderen Genehmigung der mißbräuchlichen Klauseln vorsehen.

    All dies in der Hoffnung, dass die italienische Rechtsprechung in Zukunft einen moderneren und internationaleren Ansatz entwickeln wird.

    Summary

    By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

    The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

    Introduction

    With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

    The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

    Scope of application

    The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

    It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

    It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

    Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

    The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

    In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the „size of the parties“: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

    Contractual requirements

    Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

    Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

    Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

    Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

    A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

    The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

    The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

    Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

    The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

    Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

    The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

    The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

    Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

    A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

    Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

    The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

    Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

    The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

    In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

    Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

    Recommended activities

    The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

    • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
    • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

    Summary: Article 44 of Decree Law No. 76 of July 16, 2020 (the so-called „Simplifications Decree„) provides that, until June 30, 2021, capital increases by joint stock companies (società per azioni), limited partnerships by shares (società in accomandita per azioni) and limited liability companies (società a responsabilità limitata) may be approved with the favorable vote of the majority of the share capital represented at the shareholders‘ meeting, provided that at least half of the share capital is present, even if the bylaws establish higher majorities.

    The rule has a significant impact on the position of minority shareholders (and investors) of unlisted Italian companies, the protection of which is frequently entrusted (also) to bylaws clauses establishing qualified majorities for the approval of capital increases.

    After describing the new rule, some considerations will be made on the consequences and possible safeguards for minority shareholders, limited to unlisted companies.

    Simplifications Decree: the reduction of majorities for the approval of capital increases in Italian joint stock companies, limited partnerships by shares and limited liability companies

    Article 44 of Decree Law No. 76 of July 16, 2020 (the so-called ‚Simplifications Decree‚)[1] temporarily reduced, until 30.6.2021, the majorities for the approval by the extraordinary shareholders‘ meeting of certain resolutions to increase the share capital.

    The rule applies to all companies, including listed ones. It applies to resolutions of the extraordinary shareholders‘ meeting on the following subjects:

    • capital increases through contributions in cash, in kind or in receivables, pursuant to Articles 2439, 2440 and 2441 (regarding joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares), and to Articles 2480, 2481 and 2481-bis of the Italian Civil Code (regarding limited liability companies);
    • the attribution to the directors of the power to increase the share capital, pursuant to Article 2443 (regarding joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares) and to Article 2480 of the Italian Civil Code (regarding limited liability companies).

    The ordinary rules provide the following mayorities:

    (a)       for joint stock companies and limited partnerships by shares: (i) on first call a majority of more than half of the share capital (Art. 2368, second paragraph, Italian Civil Code); (ii) on second call a majority of two thirds of the share capital presented at the meeting (Art. 2369, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code);

    (b)       for limited liability companies, a majority of more than half of the share capital (Art. 2479-bis, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code);

    (c)       for listed companies, a majority of two thirds of the share capital represents-to in the shareholders‘ meeting (Art. 2368, second paragraph and Art. 2369, third paragraph, Italian Civil Code).

    Most importantly, the ordinary rules allow for qualified majorities (i.e., higher than those required by law) in the bylaws.

    The temporary provisions of Article 44 of the Simplifications Decree provide that resolutions are approved with the favourable vote of the majority of the share capital represented at the shareholders‘ meeting, provided that at least half of the share capital is present. This majority also applies if the bylaws provide for higher majorities.

    Simplifications Decree: the impact of the decrease in majorities for the approval of capital increases on minority shareholders of unlisted Italian companies

    The rule has a significant impact on the position of minority shareholders (and investors) in unlisted Italian companies. It can be strongly criticised, particularly because it allows derogations from the higher majorities established in the bylaws, thus affecting ongoing relationships and the governance agreed between shareholders and reflected in the bylaws.

    Qualified majorities, higher than the legal ones, for the approval of capital increases are a fundamental protection for minority shareholders (and investors). They are frequently introduced in the bylaws: when the company is set up with several partners, in the context of aggregation transactions, in investment transactions, private equity and venture capital transactions.

    Qualified majorities prevent majority shareholders from carrying out transactions without the consent of minority shareholders (or some of them), which have a significant impact on the company and the position of minority shareholders. In fact, capital increases through contributions of assets reduce the minority shareholder’s shareholding percentage and can significantly change the company’s business (e.g. through the contribution of a business). Capital increases in cash force the minority shareholder to choose between further investing in the company or reducing its shareholding.

    The reduction in the percentage of participation may imply the loss of important protections, linked to the possession of a participation above a certain threshold. These are not only certain rights provided for by law in favour of minority shareholders[2], but – with even more serious effects – the protections deriving from the qualified majorities provided for in the bylaws to approve certain decisions. The most striking case is that of the qualified majority for resolutions amending the bylaws, so that the amendments cannot be approved without the consent of the minority shareholders (or some of them). This is a fundamental clause, in order to ensure stability for certain provisions of the bylaws, agreed between the shareholders, that protect the minority shareholders, such as: pre-emption and tag-along rights, list voting for the appointment of the board of directors, qualified majorities for the taking of decisions by the shareholders‘ meeting or the board of directors, limits on the powers that can be delegated by the board of directors. Through the capital increase, the majority can obtain a percentage of the shareholding that allows it to amend the bylaws, unilaterally departing from the governance structure agreed with the other shareholders.

    The legislator has disregarded all this and has introduced a rule that does not simplify. Rather, it fuels conflicts between the shareholders and undermines legal certainty, thus discouraging investments rather than encouraging them.

    Simplifications Decree: checks and safeguards for minority shareholders with respect to the decrease in majorities for the approval of capital increases

    In order to assess the situation and the protection of the minority shareholder it is necessary to examine any shareholders‘ agreement in force between the shareholders. The existence of a shareholders‘ agreement will be almost certain in private equity or venture capital transactions or by other professional investors. But outside of these cases there are many companies, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, where the relationships between the shareholders are governed exclusively by the bylaws.

    In the shareholders‘ agreement it will have to be verified whether there are clauses binding the shareholders, as parties to the agreement, to approve capital increases by qualified majority, i.e. higher than those required by law. Or whether the agreement make reference to a text of the bylaws (attached or by specific reference) that provides for such a majority, so that compliance with the qualified majority can be considered as an obligation of the parties to the shareholders‘ agreement.

    In this case, the shareholders‘ agreement will protect the minority shareholder(s), as Article 44 of the Simplifications Decree does not introduce an exception to the clauses of the shareholders‘ agreement.

    The protection offered by the shareholders‘ agreement is strong, but lower than that of the bylaws. The clause in the bylaws requiring a qualified majority binds all shareholders and the company, so the capital increase cannot be validly approved in violation of the bylaws. The shareholders‘ agreement, on the other hand, is only binding between the parties to the agreement, so it does not prevent the company from approving the capital increase, even if the shareholder’s vote violates the obligations of the shareholders‘ agreement. In this case, the other shareholders will be entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the breach of the agreement.

    In the absence of a shareholders‘ agreement that binds the shareholders to respect a qualified majority for the approval of the capital increase, the minority shareholder has only the possibility of challenging the resolution to increase the capital, due to abuse of the majority, if the resolution is not justified in the interest of the company and the majority shareholder’s vote pursues a personal interest that is antithetical to the company’s interest, or if it is the instrument of fraudulent activity by the majority shareholders aimed at infringing the rights of minority shareholders[3]. A narrow escape, and a protection certainly insufficient.

    [1] The Simplifications Decree was converted into law by Law no. 120 of September 11, 2020. The conversion law replaced art. 44 of the Simplifications Decree, extending the temporary discipline provided therein to capital increases in cash and to capital increases of limited liability companies.

    [2] For example: the percentage of 10% (33% for limited liability companies) for the right of shareholders to obtain the call of the meeting (art. 2367; art. 2479 Italian Civil Code); the percentage of 20% (10% for limited liability companies) to prevent the waiver or settlement of the liability action against the directors (art. 2393, sixth paragraph; art. 2476, fifth paragraph, Italian Civil Code); the percentage of 20% for the exercise by the shareholder of the liability action against the directors (art. 2393-bis, Civil Code).

    [3] Cass. Civ., 12 December 2005, no. 27387; Trib. Roma, 31 March 2017, no. 6452.

    In 2019 the Private Equity and Venture Capital players have invested Euro 7,223 million in 370 transactions in the Italian Market, 26% less than 2018; these are the outcomes released on March 24th by AIFI (Italian Association of Private Equity, Venture Capital e Private Debt).

    In this slowing down scenario the spreading of Covid-19 is impacting Private Equity and Venture Capital transactions currently in progress, thus raising implications and alerts that will considerably affect both further capital investments and the legal approach to investments themselves.

    Companies spanning a wide range of industries are concerned by Covid-19 health emergency, with diverse impacts on businesses depending on the industry. In this scenario, product companies, direct-to-consumer companies, and retail-oriented businesses appear to be more affected than service, digital, and hi-tech companies. Firms and investors will both need to batten down the hatches, as to minimize the effects of the economic contraction on the on-going investment transactions. In this scenario, investors hypothetically backing off from funding processes represent an issue of paramount concern for start-ups, as these companies are targeted by for VC and PE investments. In that event, the extent of the risk would be dependent upon the investment agreements and share purchase agreements (SPAs) entered into and the term sheets approved by the parties.

    MAC/MAE clauses

    The right of investors to withdrawal (way out) from a transaction is generally secured by the so-called MAC or MAE clauses – respectively, material adverse change clause or material adverse effect. These clauses, as the case may be and in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, upon the subscription of the agreements, which significantly impact the business or particular variables of the investment, allow investors to decide not to proceed to closing, not to proceed to the subscription and the payment of the share capital increase, when previously resolved, to modify/renegotiate the enterprise value, or to split the proposed investment/acquisition into multiple tranches.

    These estimates, in terms of type and potential methods of application of the clauses, usually depend on a number of factors, including the governing law for the agreements – if other than Italian – with this circumstance possibly applying in the case of foreign investors imposing the existing law in their jurisdiction, as the result of their position in the negotiation.

    When the enforcement of MAC/MAE clauses leads to the modification/renegotiation of the enterprise value – that is to be lowered – it is advisable to provide for specific contract terms covering calculating mechanisms allowing for smoothly redefining the start-up valuation in the venture capital deals, with the purpose of avoiding any gridlocks that would require further involvement of experts or arbitrators.

    In the absence of MAC/MAE clauses and in the case of agreements governed by the Italian law, the Civil Code provides for a contractual clause called ‘supervenient burdensomeness’ (eccessiva onerosità sopravvenuta) of a specific performance (i.e. the investment), with the consequent right for the party whose performance has become excessively burdensome to terminate the contract or to make changes to the contract, with a view to fair and balanced conditions – this solution however implies an inherent degree of complexity and cannot be instantly implemented. In case of agreements governed by foreign laws, it shall be checked whether or not the applicable provisions allow the investor to exit the transaction.

    Interim Period clauses

    MAC/MAE are generally negotiated when the time expected to closing is medium or long. Similarly, time factors underpin the concept of the Interim Period clauses regulating the business operation in the period between signing and closing, by re-shaping the company’s ordinary scope of business, i.e. introducing maximum expenditure thresholds and providing for the prohibition to execute a variety of transactions, such as capital-related transactions, except when the investors, which shall be entitled to remove these restrictions from time to time, agree otherwise.

    It is recommended to ascertain that the Interim Period clauses provide for a possibility to derogate from these restrictions, following prior authorization from the investors, and that said clauses do not require, where this possibility is lacking, for an explicit modification to the provision because of the occurrence of any operational need due to the Covid-19 emergency.

    Conditions for closing

    The Government actions providing for measures to contain coronavirus have caused several slowdowns that may impact on the facts or events that are considered as preliminary conditions which, when occurring, allow to proceed to closing. Types of such conditions range from authorisations to public entities (i.e. IPs jointly owned with a university), to the achievement of turnover objectives or the completion of precise milestones, that may be negatively affected by the present standstill of companies and bodies. Where these conditions were in fact jeopardised by the events triggered by the Covid-19 outbreak, this would pose important challenges to closing, except where expressly provided that the investor can renounce, with consent to proceed to the investment in all cases. This is without prejudice to the possibility of renegotiating the conditions, in agreement with all the parties.

    Future investments: best practice

    Covid-19 virus related emergency calls for a change in the best practice of Private Equity and Venture Capital transactions: these should carry out detailed Due diligences on aspects which so far have been under-examined.

    This is particularly true for insurance policies covering cases of business interruption resulting from extraordinary and unpredictable events; health insurance plans for employees; risk management procedures in supply chain contracts, especially with foreign counterparts; procedures for smart working and relevant GDPR compliance issues in case of targeted companies based in EU and UK; contingency plans, workplace safety, also in connection with the protocols that ensure ad-hoc policies for in-house work.

    Investment protection should therefore also involve MAC/MAE clauses and relevant price adjustment mechanisms, including for the negotiation of contract-related warranties (representation & warranties). A special focus shall be given now, with a different approach, to the companies’ ability to tackle and minimize the risks that may arise from unpredictable events of the same scope as Covid-19, which is now affecting privacy systems, the workforce, the management of supply chain contracts, and the creditworthiness of financing agreements.

    This emergency will lead investors to value the investments with even greater attention to information, other than financial ones, about targeted companies.

    Indeed, it is mandatory today to gain overview on the resilience of businesses, in terms of structure and capability, when these are challenged by the exogenous variables of the market on the one side, and by the endogenous variables on the other side – to be now understood as part of the global economy.

    There is however good news: Venture Capital and Private Equity, like any other ecosystem, will have its own response capacity and manage to gain momentum, as it happened in 2019 when Italy witnessed an unprecedented increase in investments. The relevant stakeholders are already developing coping strategies. Transactions currently in progress are not halted – though slowed down. Indeed, the quarantine does not preclude negotiations or shareholders’ meetings, which are held remotely or by videoconference. This also helps dispel the notion that meetings can only be conducted by getting the parties concerned round the same table.

    The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

    Summary – What can the owner (or licensee) of a trademark do if an unauthorized third party resells products with its trademark on an online platform? This issue was addressed in the judgment of C-567/18 of 2 April 2020, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that platforms (Amazon Marketplace, in this case) storing goods which infringe trademark rights are not liable for such infringement, unless the platform puts them on the market or is aware of the infringement. Conversely, platforms (such as Amazon Retail) that contribute to the distribution or resell the products themselves may be liable.

    Background

    Coty – a German company, distributor of perfumes, holding a licence for the EU trademark “Davidoff” – noted that third-party sellers were offering on Amazon Marketplace perfumes bearing the „Davidoff Hot Water“ brand, which had been put in the EU market without its consent.

    After reaching an agreement with one of the sellers, Coty sued Amazon in order to prevent it from storing and shipping those perfumes unless they were placed on the EU market with Coty’s consent. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected Coty’s request, which brought an appeal before the German Court of Cassation, which in turn referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU.

    What is the Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trademark

    The principle of exhaustion is envisaged by EU law, according to which, once a good is put on the EU market, the proprietor of the trademark right on that specific good can no longer limit its use by third parties.

    This principle is effective only if the entry of the good (the reference is to the individual product) on the market is done directly by the right holder, or with its consent (e.g. through an operator holding a licence).

    On the contrary, if the goods are placed on the market by third parties without the consent of the proprietor, the latter may – by exercising the trademark rights established by art. 9, par. 3 of EU Regulation 2017/1001 – prohibit the use of the trademark for the marketing of the products.

    By the legal proceedings which ended before the Court of Justice of the EU, Coty sought to enforce that right also against Amazon, considering it to be a user of the trademark, and therefore liable for its infringement.

    What is the role of Amazon?

    The solution of the case revolves around the role of the web platform.

    Although Amazon provides users with a unique search engine, it hosts two radically different sales channels. Through the Amazon Retail channel, the customer buys products directly from the Amazon company, which operates as a reseller of products previously purchased from third party suppliers.

    The Amazon Marketplace, on the other hand, displays products owned by third-party vendors, so purchase agreements are concluded between the end customer and the vendor. Amazon gets a commission on these transactions, while the vendor assumes the responsibility for the sale and can manage the prices of the products independently.

    According to the German courts which rejected Coty’s claims in the first and second instance, Amazon Marketplace essentially acts as a depository, without offering the goods for sale or putting them on the market.

    Coty, vice versa, argues that Amazon Marketplace, by offering various marketing-services (including: communication with potential customers in order to sell the products; provision of the platform through which customers conclude the contract; and consistent promotion of the products, both on its website and through advertisements on Google), can be considered as a „user“ of the trademark, within the meaning of Article 9, paragraph 3 of EU Regulation 2017/1001.

    The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union

    Advocate General Campos Sanchez-Bordona, in the opinion delivered on 28 November 2019, had suggested to the Court to distinguish between: the mere depositaries of the goods, not to be considered as „users“ of the trademark for the purposes of EU Regulation 2017/1001; and those who – in addition to providing the deposit service – actively participate in the distribution of the goods. These latter, in the light of art. 9, par. 3, letter b) of EU Regulation 2017/1001, should be considered as „users“ of the trademark, and therefore directly responsible in case of infringements.

    The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany), however, had already partially answered the question when it referred the matter to the European Court, stating that Amazon Marketplace “merely stored the goods concerned, without offering them for sale or putting them on the market”, both operations carried out solely by the vendor.

    The EU Court of Justice ruled the case on the basis of some precedents, in which it had already stated that:

    • The expression “using” involves at the very least, the use of the sign in the commercial communication. A person may thus allow its clients to use signs which are identical or similar to trademarks without itself using those signs (see Google vs Louis Vuitton, Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, par. 56).
    • With regard to e-commerce platforms, the use of the sign identical or similar to a trademark is made by the sellers, and not by the platform operator (see L’Oréal vs eBay, C‑324/09, par. 103).
    • The service provider who simply performs a technical part of the production process cannot be qualified as a „user“ of any signs on the final products. (see Frisdranken vs Red Bull, C‑119/10, par. 30. Frisdranken is an undertaking whose main activity is filling cans, supplied by a third party, already bearing signs similar to Redbull’s registered trademarks).

    On the basis of that case-law and the qualification of Amazon Marketplace provided by the referring court, the European Court has ruled that a company which, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights, if it is not aware of that infringement and does not offer them for sale or place them on the market, is not making “use” of the trademark and, therefore, is not liable to the proprietor of the rights to that trademark.

    Conclusion

    After Coty had previously been the subject of a historic ruling on the matter (C-230/16 – link to the Legalmondo previous post), in this case the Court of Justice decision confirmed the status quo, but left the door open for change in the near future.

    A few considerations on the judgement, before some practical tips:

    • The Court did not define in positive terms the criteria for assessing whether an online platform performs sufficient activity to be considered as a user of the sign (and therefore liable for any infringement of the registered trademark). This choice is probably dictated by the fact that the criteria laid down could have been applied (including to the various companies belonging to the Amazon group) in a non-homogeneous manner by the various Member States’ national courts, thus jeopardising the uniform application of European law.
    • If the Court of Justice had decided the case the other way around, the ruling would have had a disruptive impact not only on Amazon’s Marketplace, but on all online operators, because it would have made them directly responsible for infringements of IP rights by third parties.
    • If the perfumes in question had been sold through Amazon Retail, there would have been no doubt about Amazon’s responsibility: through this channel, sales are concluded directly between Amazon and the end customer.
    • The Court has not considered whether: (i) Amazon could be held indirectly liable within the meaning of Article 14(1) of EU Directive 2000/31, as a “host” which – although aware of the illegal activity – did not prevent it; (ii) under Article 11 of EU Directive 2004/48, Coty could have acted against Amazon as an intermediary whose services are used by third parties to infringe its IP right. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Amazon may be held (indirectly) liable for the infringements committed, including on the Marketplace: this aspect will have to be examined in detail on a case-by-case basis.

    Practical tips

    What can the owner (or licensee) of a trademark do if an unauthorized third party resells products with its trademark on an online platform?

    1. Gather as much evidence as possible of the infringement in progress: the proof of the infringement is one of the most problematic aspects of IP litigation.
    2. Contact a specialized lawyer to send a cease-and-desist letter to the unauthorized seller, ordering the removal of the products from the platform and asking the compensation for damages suffered.
    3. If the products are not removed from the marketplace, the trademark owner might take legal action to obtain the removal of the products and compensation for damages.
    4. In light of the judgment in question, the online platforms not playing an active role in the resale of goods remain not directly responsible for IP violations. Nevertheless, it is suggested to consider sending the cease-and-desist letter to them as well, in order to put more pressure on the unauthorised seller.
    5. The sending of the cease-and-desist letter also to the platform – especially in the event of several infringements – may also be useful to demonstrate its (indirect) liability for lack of vigilance, as seen in point 4) of the above list.

    Summary – When can the Coronavirus emergency be invoked as a Force Majeure event to avoid contractual liability and compensation for damages? What are the effects on the international supply chain when a Chinese company fails to fulfill its obligations to supply or purchase raw materials, components, or products? What behaviors should foreign entrepreneurs adopt to limit the risks deriving from the interruption of supplies or purchases in the supply chain?

    Topics covered

    • The impact of Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the international Supply chain
    • What is Force Majeure?
    • The Force Majeure Contract Clause
    • What is Hardship?
    • Is the Coronavirus a Force Majeure or Hardship event?
    • What is the event reported by the Supplier?
    • Did the Supplier provide evidence of Force Majeure?
    • Does the contract establish a Force Majeure or Hardship clause?
    • What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?
    • How to limit supply chain risks?

    The impact of Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the international Supply chain

    Coronavirus/Covid 19 has created terrible health and social emergencies in China, which have made exceptional measures of public order necessary for the containment of the virus, like quarantines, travel bans, the suspension of public and private events, and the closure of industrial plants, offices and commercial activities for a certain period of time.

    Once the reopening of the plants was authorized, the return to normality was strongly slowed because many workers, who had traveled to other regions in China for the Lunar New Year holiday, did not return to their workplaces.

    The current data on the reopening of the factories and the number of staff present are not unambiguous, and it is legitimate to doubt their reliability; therefore, it is not possible to predict when the emergency can be defined as having ended, or if and how Chinese companies will be able to fill the delays and production gaps that have been created.

    Certainly, it is very probable that, in the coming months, foreign entrepreneurs will see their Chinese counterparts pleading the impossibility of fulfilling their contracts, with Coronavirus as the reason.

    To understand the size of the problem, just consider that in the month of February 2020 alone, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (the Chinese Chamber of Commerce that is tasked with promoting international commerce) at the request of Chinese companies, has already issued 3,325 certificates attesting to the impossibility of fulfilling contractual obligations due to the Coronavirus epidemic, for a total value of more than 270 billion yuan (US $38.4 bn), according to the official Xinhua News Agency.

    container

    What risks does this situation pose for foreign entrepreneurs, and what consequences can it have beyond Chinese borders?

    There are many risks, and the potential damages are enormous: China is the world’s factory, and it currently generates roughly 15% of the world’s GDP. Therefore, it is unlikely that a production chain in any industrial sector does not involve one or more Chinese companies as suppliers of raw materials, semi-finished materials, or components (in the case of Italy, the sectors most integrated with supply chains in China are the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, electronic, and machinery sectors).

    Failure to fulfill on the part of the Chinese may, therefore, result in a cascade of non-fulfillments of foreign entrepreneurs towards their end clients or towards the next link in the supply chain.

    The fact that the virus is spreading rapidly (at the moment of publication of this article the situation is already critical in some regions in Italy (and in South Korea and Iran), and cases are beginning to be flagged in the USA) furthermore, makes it possible that production stops and quarantine situations similar to those described could also be adopted in regions and industrial sectors of other countries.

    To simplify this picture, let us consider the case of a Chinese supplier (Party A) that supplies a component or performs a service for a foreign company (Party B), which in turn assembles (in China or abroad) the components into a semi-finished or final product, that is then resold to third parties (Party C).

    operaio

    If Party A is late or unable to deliver their product or service to Party B, they risk finding themselves exposed to risks of contract failure versus Party C, and so on along the supply/purchase chain.

    Let’s examine how to handle the case in which Party A communicates that it has become impossible to fulfill the contract for reasons related to the Coronavirus emergency, such as in the case of an administrative measure to close the plant, the lack of staff in the factory on reopening, the impossibility of obtaining certain raw materials or components, the blocking of certain logistics services, etc.

    In international trade, this situation, i.e. exemption from liability for non-fulfillment of contractual performance, which has become impossible due to events that have occurred outside the sphere of control of the Party, is generally defined as „Force Majeure“.

    To understand when it is legitimate for a supplier to invoke the impossibility to fulfill a contract due to the Coronavirus and when instead these actions are unfounded or specious, we must ask ourselves when can Party A invoke Force Majeure and what can Party B do to limit damages and avoid being considered in-breach towards Party C.

    What is Force Majeure?

    At an international level, a unified concept of Force Majeure doesn’t exist because every different country has established their own specific regulations.

    A useful reference is given by the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), ratified by 93 countries (among which are Italy, China, the USA, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, and Mexico) and automatically applicable to sales between companies with seat in contracting states.

    Art. 79 of CISG, titled, “Impediment Excusing Party from Damages”, provides that, “A party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.”

    The characteristics of the cause of exemption from liability for non-fulfillment are, therefore, its unpredictability, the fact that it is beyond the control of the Party, and the impossibility of taking reasonable steps to avoid or overcome it.

    In order to establish, in concrete terms, if the conditions for a Force Majeure event exist, what its consequences are, and how the parties should conduct themselves, it is first necessary to analyze the content of the Force Majeure clause (if any) included in the contract.

    The Force Majeure Contract Clause

    The model Force Majeure clause used for reference in international commerce is the one prepared by the International Chamber of Commerce, la ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003, which provides the requirements that the party invoking force majeure has the burden of proving (in substance they are those provided by art. 79 of CISG), and it indicates a series of events in which these requirements are presumed to occur (including situations of war, embargoes, acts of terrorism, piracy, natural disasters, general strikes, measures of the authorities).

    The ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003 also indicates how the party who invokes the event should behave:

    • Give prompt notice to the other parties of the impediment;
    • In the case in which the impediment will be temporary, promptly communicate to the other parties the end;
    • In the event that the impossibility of the performance derives from the non-fulfillment of a third party (as in the case of a subcontractor) provide proof that the conditions of the Force Majeure also apply to the third supplier;
    • In the event that this shall lead to the loss of interest in the service, promptly communicate the decision to terminate the contract;
    • In the event of termination of the contract, return any service received or an amount of equivalent value.

    Given that the parties are free to include in the contract the ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003 or another clause of different content, in the face of a notification of a Force Majeure event, it will, therefore, be necessary, first of all, to analyze what the contractual clause envisages in that specific case.

    The second step (or the first, if, in the contract, there is no Force Majeure clause) would then be to verify what the law applicable to the contractual agreement provides (which we will deal with later).

    It is also possible that the event indicated by the defaulting party does not lead to the impossibility of the fulfillment of the contract, but makes it excessively burdensome: in this case, you cannot apply Force Majeure, but the assumptions of the so-called Hardship clause could be used.

    What is Hardship?

    Hardship is another clause that often occurs in international contracts: it regulates the cases in which, after the conclusion of the contract, the performance of one of the parties becomes excessively burdensome or complicated due to events that have occurred, independent of the will of the party.

    The outcome of a Hardship event is that of a strong imbalance of the contract in favor of one party. Some textbook examples would be: an unpredictable sharp rise in the price of a raw material, the imposition of duties on the import of a certain product, or the oscillation of the currency beyond a certain range agreed between the parties.

    Unlike Force Majeure, in the case of Hardship, performance is still feasible, but it has become excessively onerous.

    In this case, the model clause is also that of the ICC Hardship Clause 2003, which provides that Hardship exists if the excessive cost is a consequence of an event outside the party’s reasonable sphere of control, which could not be taken into consideration before the conclusion of the agreement, and whose consequences cannot be reasonably managed.

    The ICC Hardship clause stabilizes what happens after a party has proven the existence of a Hardship event, namely:

    • The obligation of the parties, within a reasonable time period, to negotiate an alternative solution to mitigate the effects of the event and bring the agreement into balance (extension of delivery times, renegotiation of the price, etc.);
    • The termination of the contract, in the event that the parties are unable to reach an alternative agreement to mitigate the effects of the Hardship.

    Also, when one of the parties invokes a Hardship event, just as we saw before for Force Majeure, it is necessary to verify if the event has been planned in the contract, what the contents of the clause are, and/or what is established by the norms applicable to the contract.

    Is the Coronavirus a Force Majeure or Hardship event?

    Let’s return to the case we examined at the beginning of the article, and try to see how to manage a case where a supplier internal to an international supply chain defaults when the Coronavirus emergency is invoked as a cause of exemption from liability.

    Let’s start by adding that there is no one response valid in all cases, as it is necessary to examine the facts, the contractual agreements between the parties, and the law applicable to the contract. What we can do is indicate the method that can be used in these cases, that is responding to the following questions:

    • The factual situation: what is the event reported by the Supplier?
    • Has the party invoking Force Majeure proven that the requirements exist?
    • What does the Contract (and/or the General Conditions of Contract) provide for?
    • What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?
    • What are the consequences on the obligations of the Parties?

    What is the event reported by the Supplier?

    As seen, the situation of force majeure exists if, after the conclusion of the contract, the performance becomes impossible due to unforeseeable events beyond the control of the obligated party, the consequences of which cannot be overcome with a reasonable effort.

    The first check to be complete is whether the event for which the party invokes the Force Majeure was outside the control of the Party and whether it makes performance of the contract impossible (and not just more complex or expensive) without the Party being able to remedy it.

    Let’s look at an example: in the contract, it is expected that Party A must deliver a product to Party B or carry out a service within a certain mandatory deadline (i.e. a non-extendable, non-waivable), after which Party B would no longer be interested in receiving the performance (think, for example, of the delivery of some materials necessary for the construction of an infrastructure for the Olympics).

    If delivery is not possible because Party A’s factory was closed due to administrative measures, or because their personnel cannot travel to Party B to complete the installation service, it could be included in the Force Majeure case list.

    If instead the service of Party A remains possible (for example with the shipping of products from a different factory in another Chinese region or in another country), and can be completed even if it would be done under more expensive conditions, Force Majeure could not be invoked, and it should be verified whether the event creates the prerequisites for Hardship, with the relative consequences.

    Did the Supplier provide evidence of Force Majeure?

    The next step is to determine if the Supplier/Party A has provided proof of the events that are prerequisites of Force Majeure. Namely, not being able to have avoided the situation, nor having a reasonable possibility of remedying it.

    To that end, the mere production of a CCPIT certificate attesting the impossibility of fulfilling contractual obligations, for the reasons explained above, cannot be considered sufficient to prove the effective existence, in the specific case, of a Force Majeure situation.

    The verification of the facts put forward and the related evidence is particularly important because, in the event that a cause for exemption by Party A is believed to exist, this evidence can then be used by Party B to document, in turn, the impossibility of fulfilling their obligations towards Party C, and so on down the supply chain.

    mascherine

    Does the contract establish a Force Majeure or Hardship clause?

    The next step is that of seeing if the contract between the parties, or the general terms and conditions of sale or purchase (if they exist and are applicable), establish a Force Majeure and/or Hardship clause.

    If yes, it is necessary to verify if the event reported by the Party invoking Force Majeure falls within those provided for in the contractual clause.

    For example, if the reported event was the closure of the factory by order of the authorities and the contractual clause was the ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003, it could be argued that the event falls within those indicated in point 3 [d] or „act of authority“ … compliance with any law or governmental order, rule, regulation or direction, curfew restriction“ or in point 3 [e] „epidemic“ or 3 [g] „general labor disturbance“.

    It should then be examined what consequences are provided for in the Clause: generally, responsibility for timely notification of the event is expected, that the party is exempt from performing the service for the duration of the Force Majeure event, and finally, a maximum term of suspension of the obligation, after which, the parties can communicate the termination of the contract.

    If the event does not fall among those provided for in the Force Majeure clause, or if there is no such clause in the contract, it should be verified whether a Hardship clause exists and whether the event can be attributed to that prevision.

    Finally, it is still necessary to verify what is established by the law applicable to the contract.

    What does the law applicable to the Contract establish?

    The last step is to verify what the laws applicable to the contract provide, both in the case when the event falls under a Force Majeure or Hardship clause, and when this clause is not present or does not include the event.

    The requirements and consequences of Force Majeure or Hardship can be regulated very differently according to the applicable laws.

    If Party A and Party B were both based in China, the law of the People’s Republic of China would apply to the sales contract, and the possibility of successfully invoking Force Majeure would have to be assessed by applying these rules.

    If instead, Party B were based in Italy, in most cases, the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods would apply to the sales contract (and as previously seen, art.79 “Impediment Excusing Party from Damages”). As far as what is not covered by CISG, the law indicated by the parties in the contract (or in the absence identified by the mechanisms of private international law) would apply.

    Similar reasoning should be applied when determining which law are applicable to the contract between Party B and Party C, and what this law provides for, and so on down the international supply chain.

    No problems are posed when the various relationships are regulated by the same legislation (for example, the CISG), but as is likely the case, if the applicable laws were different, the situation becomes much more complicated. This is because the same event could be considered a cause for exemption from contractual liability for Party A to Party B, but not in the next step of the supply chain, from Party B to Party C, and so on.

    How to limit supply chain risks?

    The best way to limit the risk of claims for damages from other companies in the supply chain is to request timely confirmation from your Supplier of their willingness to perform the contractual services according to the established terms, and then to share that information with the other companies that are part of the supply chain.

    In the case of non-fulfillment motivated by the Coronavirus emergency, it is essential to verify whether the reported event falls among those that may be a cause of contractual exemption from liability and to require the supplier to provide the relevant evidence. The proof, if it confirms the impossibility of the supplier’s performance, can be used by the buyer, in turn, to invoke Force Majeure towards other companies in the Supply Chain.

    If there are Force Majeure/Hardship clauses in the contracts, it would be necessary to examine what they establish in terms of notice of the impossibility to perform, term of suspension of the obligation, consequences of termination of the contract, as well as what the laws applicable to the contracts provide.

    Finally, it is important to remember that most laws establish a responsibility of the  non-defaulting party to mitigate damages deriving from the possible non-fulfillment of the other party. This means that if it is probable, or just possible, that the Chinese Supplier will default on a delivery, the purchasing party would then have to do everything possible to remedy it, and in any case, fulfill their obligations towards the other companies that form part of the supply chain; for example by obtaining the product from other suppliers even at greater expense.

    One of the most tricky steps in any M&A operation is when the issue of „warranties“, in particular with reference to the economic situation, the balance sheet and the financial position of the company or business (or of a branch), namely the so-called „business warranties„.

    On one side, the buyer would like to „ironclad“ his investment by reducing the risk of an unpleasant surprise to a minimum. The seller, by contrast, wishes to provide the least possible warranties, which often translate in a provisory restriction on the full enjoyment of the proceeds; the same may be essential for further investment.

    It should be noted, first of all, that the term „warranties“ is usually referred to, in a non-technical acceptation, to a complex set of contractual provisions containing:

    • any seller’s statements about the health of the company or business (or branch of business) being transferred;
    • any compensation obligations undertaken by the seller in case of „violation“ (i.e. mistruth) of the assertions;
    • any remedies provided to ensure the effectiveness of the indemnity obligations entered into.

    While there are several reasons why this set is necessary, the most significant one is that in M&A contracts, statutory sale warranties only apply to the good sold; therefore, if the good sold is an equity investment, the warranties do not cover any of the company’s underlying assets; and even as they exceptionally do apply, short terms and strict limitations still justify an ancillary obligation designed to ensure the economic success of the transaction.

    As confirmed by current practice, there is not a single M&A agreement that does not include a set of warranties.

    In particular, representations typically incorporate the buyer’s due diligence, which for its part usually follows a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to protect any information disclosed.

    Any criticalities identified should be properly mentioned. Clearly, wherever a criticality arises, it may not necessarily trigger an indemnity obligation. It will be up to the parties to lay down the rules, as they may also provide that any related risk is to be borne by the buyer; this may be offset by a reduction in the price.

    Some aspects of the compensation obligation will have to be carefully negotiated. The main ones are certainly:

    • duration (e.g. longer for tax-related warranties);
    • who is entitled to compensation (the buyer or the company; one or the other as the case may be);
    • any deductions and/or limitations (e.g. tax losses);
    • compensation cap;
    • any possible deductible;
    • the compensation procedure (e.g. application deadlines, settlement procedure, particular circumstances).

    These are highly relevant aspects and should by no means be underestimated. As an example, it is obvious that if the compensation procedure is poorly regulated, all the previous efforts are jeopardised.

    Finally, suitable measures to ensure an effective protection of the buyer must be provided. Among these, the most conventional tools are:

    • the surety;
    • the “independent contract of guarantee”;
    • the escrow;
    • the deferment of payment;
    • the “earn-out”-scheme;
    • the “price adjustment”;
    • the letter of patronage;
    • the pledge and/or mortgage.

    These are more or less widely used instruments, each one with its pros and cons.

    At this point, however, we would like to address a new tool with an insurance character, which has been being used recently: the so-called „Warranty & Indemnity Policies„.

    With a W&I insurance policy, basically, the insurer assumes the risk resulting from breaches of warranties and indemnities included in an M&A contract upon payment of a premium.

    It is obviously a key condition that the violation arose from facts preceding the closing and which were not known at that time (and, therefore, not highlighted by the due diligence carried out).

    The insurance policy may be subscribed by the buyer (buyer side) or the seller (seller side). Usually the first option is preferred. These W&I insurance policies come with a number of advantages:

    • a warranty is given even when the seller has been unwilling to commit himself contractually;
    • the insurance policy usually does not provide for any recourse against the seller, other than in the case of malice, so that the seller is fully released;
    • it is also possible to achieve a higher ceiling than that provided for in a purchase agreement;
    • likewise, coverage may be provided for a longer period;
    • it is easier to deal with the seller, especially if there are several and some are still part of the company, perhaps as members of the Board of Directors;
    • compensation procedures become significantly easier, especially in cases where there are multiple sellers, including individuals;
    • the buyer gains a higher certainty of solvency.

    The cost of the insurance policy may be shared between the parties, eventually by discounting the purchase price, which the seller may be more willing to grant, considering that he will not be required to issue other warranties and can immediately use the proceeds of the sale.

    Premiums are usually set somewhere between 1% and 2% of the compensation limit (with a minimum premium).

    Besides the price, which makes the tool mostly suitable for operations of not modest entity, currently, the main limitation seems to be the commonly required deductible, equal to 1% of the Enterprise Value of the Target, which may be reduced to 0.5% in case of higher premiums. Keep in mind that the W&I insurance policy implies a review of the due diligence by the insurance company, which can translate into an actual intervention in the negotiation of the warranties.

    Beyond this, this tool needs to be carefully evaluated: facing highly complex scenarios, it could be the ideal solution to solve an impasse in negotiations and make relations between professional investors and SMEs easier.

    Simone Rossi

    Tätigkeitsgebiete

    • Unternehmen
    • Verträge
    • Fusionen und Übernahmen
    • Zahlungsunfähigkeit
    • Privates Eigenkapital
    Kontakt Simone