Active partners and silent partners: green light for the put clause

19 mars 2019

  • Italie
  • Entreprise

Acquisitions (M&A) in Italy are carried out in most cases through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) or business or business unit (‘asset deal’). For mainly tax reasons, share deals are more frequent than asset deals, despite the asset deal allows a better limitation of risks for the buyer. We will explain the main differences between share deal and asset deal in terms of risks, and in terms of relationships between seller and buyer.

Preference for acquisitions through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) rather than the purchase of business or business unit (‘asset deal’) in the Italian market

In Italy, acquisitions are carried out, in most cases, through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) or of business or business unit (‘asset deal’). Other structures, such as mergers, are less frequent.

By purchasing shareholdings of the target company (‘share deal‘), the buyer indirectly acquires all the company’s assets, liabilities and legal relationships. Therefore, the buyer bears all the risks relating to the previous management of the company.

With the purchase of the business or of a business unit of the target company (‘asset deal‘), the buyer acquires a set of assets and relationships organized for the operation of the business (real estate, machineries, patents, trademarks, employees, contracts, credits, debts, etc.). The advantage of the asset deal lies in the possibility for the parties to select the assets and liabilities included in the deal: hence the buyer can limit the legal risks of the transaction.

Despite this advantage, most acquisitions in Italy are made through the purchase of shareholdings. In 2018, there were approximately 78,400 purchases of shareholdings (shares or quotas), while there were approximately 35,900 sales of businesses or business units. (source: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). It should be noted that the number of transfers of business also includes small or very small businesses owned by individual entrepreneurs, for whom the alternative of the share deal (though feasible, through the contribution of the business in a newco and the sale of the shares in the newco) is not viable in practice for cost reasons.

Taxation of share deal and asset deal in Italy

The main reason for the preference for share deal over asset deal lies in the tax costs of the transaction. Let’s see what they are.

In a share deal, the direct taxes borne by the seller are calculated on the capital gain, according to the following rates:

  • if the seller is a joint-stock company (società per azioni – s.p.a.; società a responsabilità limitata – r.l.; società in accomandita per azioni – s.a.p.a.), the corporate tax rate is 24% of the capital gain. However, under certain conditions, the so-called PEX (participation exemption) regime is applied with the application of the rate of 24% on 5% of the capital gain only.
  • If the seller is a partnership (società semplice – s.s.; società in nome collettivo – s.n.c..; società in accomandita semplice – s.a.s.) the capital gain is fully taxable. However, under certain conditions, the taxable amount is limited to 60% of the amount of the capital gain. In both cases, the taxable amount is attributed pro rata to each shareholder of the partnership, and added to the shareholders’ income (the tax rate depends on the shareholders’ income).
  • If the seller is a natural person, the rate on the capital gain is 26%.

A share deal is subject to a fixed registration tax of € 200,00, normally paid by the buyer.

In an asset deal, the direct taxes to be paid by the seller are calculated on the capital gain. If the seller is a joint-stock company, the corporate tax rate is 24% of the capital gain. If the seller is a partnership (with individual partners) or an individual entrepreneur, the rate depends on the seller’s income.

In an asset deal the transfer of the business or of the business unit is subject to registration tax, generally paid by the buyer. However both the seller and the buyer are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the registration tax. The tax is calculated on the part of the price attributable to the assets transferred. The price is the result of the transferred assets minus the transferred liabilities. The tax rate depends on the type of asset transferred. In general:

  • movable assets, including patents and trademarks: 3%;
  • goodwill: 3%;
  • buildings: 9%;
  • land: between 9% and 12% (depending on the buyer).

If the parties do not apportion the purchase price to the different assets in proportion to their values, the registration tax is applied to the entire purchase price at the highest rate of those applicable to the assets.

It should be noted that the tax authorities may assess the value attributed by the parties to real estate and goodwill, with the consequent risk of application of higher taxes.

Share deal and asset deal: risks and responsibilities towards third parties

In the purchase of shares or quotas (‘share deal‘), the purchaser bears, indirectly, all the risks relating to the previous management of the company.

In the purchase of business or business unit (‘asset deal‘), on the other hand, the parties can select which assets and liabilities will be transferred, hence establishing, among them, the risks that the buyer will bear.

However, there are some rules, which the parties cannot derogate from, relating to relationships with third parties, that have a significant impact on the risks for the seller and the buyer, and therefore on the negotiation of the purchase agreement. The main ones are as follows.

  • Employees: the employment relationship continues with the buyer of the business. The seller and the buyer are jointly and severally liable for all the employee’s rights and claims at the time of transfer (art. 2112 of the Italian Civil Code).
  • Debts: the seller is obliged to pay all debts up to the date of transfer. The buyer is liable for the debts that are shown in the mandatory accounting books (art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code).
  • Tax debts and liabilities: the seller is obliged to pay debts, taxes and tax penalties relating to the period up to the date of transfer. In addition to the liability for tax debts resulting from mandatory accounting books (Article 2560 of the Italian Civil Code), the buyer is liable for taxes and penalties, even if they are not shown in the accounting books, with the following limits (Article 14 of Legislative Decree 472/1997):
  • the buyer benefits from the prior enforcement of the seller;
  • the buyer is liable up to the value of the business or business unit;
  • for taxes and penalties not emerging from a tax audit by the tax authorities that has taken place before the date of transfer, the buyer is liable for those relating to the year of the sale of the business and the two preceding years only;
  • the tax authorities shall issue a certificate on the existence and amount of debts and ongoing tax audits. If the certificate is not issued within 40 days of the request, the buyer will be released from liability. If the certificate is issued, the buyer will be liable up to the amount resulting from the certificate.
  • Contracts: the parties can choose which contracts to transfer. With respect to the contracts transferred, the buyer takes over, even without the consent of the third contracting party, contracts for the operation of the business that are not of a personal nature. In addition, the third contracting party may withdraw from the contract within three months if there is a just cause (e.g. if the buyer does not guarantee to be able to fulfil the contract due to his financial situation or technical skills) (Art. 2558 of the Italian Civil Code).

Some ways to deal with the risks

To manage the risks arising from third party liability and the general risks associated with the acquisition, a number of negotiation and contractual tools can be used. Let’s see some of them.

In an asset deal:

Employees: it is possible to agree with the employee changes to the contractual terms and conditions, and waive of joint and several liability of the buyer and seller (pursuant to art. 2112 c.c.). In order to be valid, the agreement with the employee must be concluded with certain requirements (for example, with the assistance of the trade unions).

Debts:

  • transfer the debts to the buyer and reduce the price accordingly. The price reduction leads to a lower tax cost of the transaction as well. In case of transfer of debts, in order to protect the seller, a declaration of release of the seller from liability pursuant to art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code can be obtained from the creditor; or, the parties can agree that the payment of the debt by the buyer will take place at the same time as the transfer of the business (‘closing‘).
  • For debts not transferred to the buyer, obtain from the creditor a declaration of release of the buyer from liability pursuant to art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code.
  • For debts for which it is not possible to obtain a declaration of release from the creditor, agree on forms of security in favor of the seller (for debts transferred) or in favor of the buyer (for debts not transferred), such as, for example, the deferment of payment of part of the price; the escrow of part of the price; bank or shareholder guarantees.

Tax debts and tax liabilities:

  • obtain from the tax authorities the certificate pursuant to art. 14 of Legislative Decree 472/1997 on debts and tax liabilities;
  • transfer the debts to the buyer, and reduce the price accordingly;
  • agree on forms of guarantee in favor of the seller (for debts transferred) and in favour of the buyer (for debts not transferred or for tax liabilities), such as those set out above for debts in general.

Contracts: for those that will be transferred:

  • verify that the seller’s obligations up to the date of transfer have been properly performed, in order to avoid the risk of disputes by the third contracting party, that could stop the performance of the contract;
  • at least for the most important contracts, obtain in advance from the third contracting party the approval of transfer of the contract.

In a share deal some tools are:

  • Due diligence. Carry out a thorough legal, tax and accounting due diligence on the company, to assess the risks in advance and manage them in the negotiation and in the acquisition contract (‘share purchase agreement’).
  • Representations and warranties (‘R&W’) and indemnification. Provide in the acquisition contract (‘share purchase agreement’) a detailed set of representations and warranties – and obligations to indemnify in the event of non-compliance – to be borne by the seller in relation to the situation of the company (‘business warranties‘: balance sheet; contracts; litigation; compliance with environmental regulations; authorizations for the conduct of business; debts; receivables, etc.). Negotiations on representations and warranties normally are carried on taking into account the outcomes of due diligence. Contractual representations and warranties on the situation of the company (‘business warranties‘) and contractual obligation to indemnify, are necessary in share deals in Italy, as in the absence of such clauses the buyer cannot obtain from the seller (except in extraordinary circumstances) compensation or indemnity if the situation of the company is different from that considered at the time of purchase.
  • Guarantees for the buyer. Means of ensuring that the buyer will be indemnified in the event of breach of representations and warranties. Among them: (a) the deferment of payment of part of the price; (b) the payment of part of the price in an escrow account for the duration of the liabilities arising from the representations and warranties and, in case of disputes between the parties, until the dispute is settled; (c) bank guarantee; (d) W&I policy: insurance contract covering the risk of the buyer in case of breach of representations and warranties, up to a maximum amount (and excluding certain risks).

Other factors influencing the choice between share deal and asset deal

Of course, the choice to carry out an acquisition operation in Italy through a share deal or an asset deal also depends on other factors, in addition to the tax cost of the transaction. Here are some of them.

  • Purchase of part of the business. The parties chose the asset deal when the transaction does not involve the purchase of the entire business of the target company but only a part of it (a business unit).
  • Situation of the target company. The buyer prefers the asset deal when the situation of the target company is so problematic that the buyer is not willing to assume all the risks arising from the previous management, but only part of them.
  • Maintenance of a role by the seller. The share deal is a better option when the seller will keep a role in the target company. In this case, the seller frequently retains, in addition to a role as director, a minority shareholdings, with exit clauses (put and call rights) after a certain period of time. The exit clauses often link the price to future results and, therefore, in the interest of the buyer, motivate the seller in his/her role as director, and, in the interest of the seller, put a value on the company’s earnings potential, not yet achieved at the time of purchase.

According to the article 20 of the Italian Code of Intellectual Property, the owner of a trademark has the right to prevent third parties, unless consent is given, from using:

  1. any sign which is identical to the trademark for goods or services which are identical to those for which the trademark is registered;
  2. any sign that is identical or similar to the registered trademark, for goods or services that are identical or similar, where due to the identity or similarity between the goods or services, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, that can also consist of a likelihood of association of the two signs;
  3. any sign which is identical with or similar to the registered trademark in relation to goods or services which are not similar, where the registered trademark has a reputation in the Country and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark.

Similar provisions can be found in art. 9, n. 2 of the EU Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union Trademark, even if in such a case the provision concerns trademarks that have a reputation.

The first two hypotheses concern the majority of the brands and the conflict between two signs that are identical for identical products or services (sub a), so-called double identity, or between two brands that are identical or similar for identical or similar products or services, if due to the identity or similarity between the signs and the identity or affinity between the products or services, there may be a risk of confusion for the public (sub b).

By « affinity » we mean a product similarity between the products or services (for example between socks and yarns) or a link between the needs that the products or services intended to satisfy (as often happens in the fashion sector, where it is usual for example that the same footwear manufacturer also offers belts for sale). It is not by chance that, although the relevance is administrative and the affinity is not defined, at the time of filing the application for registration of a trademark, the applicant must indicate the products and / or services for which he wants to obtain the protection choosing among assets and services present in the International Classification of Nice referred to the related Agreement of 1957 (today at the eleventh edition issued on 01.01.2019). Indeed, following the leading IP Translator case (Judgment of the EU Court of Justice of 19 June 2012, C-307/10), the applicant is required to identify, within each class, the each good or service for which he invokes the protection, so as to correctly delimit the protection of the brand.

Beyond the aforementioned ordinary marks, there are some signs that, over time, have acquired a certain notoriety for which, as envisaged by the hypothesis sub c), the protection also extends to the products and / or services that are not similar (even less identical) to those for which the trademark is registered.

The ratio underlying the aforementioned rule is to contrast the counterfeiting phenomenon due to the undue appropriation of merits. In the fashion sector, for example, we often see counterfeit behaviors aimed at exploiting parasitically the commercial start-up of the most famous brands in order to induce the consumer to purchase the product in light of the higher qualities – in the broad sense – of the product.

The protection granted by the regulation in question is therefore aimed at protecting the so-called « selling power » of the trademark, understood as a high sales capacity due to the evocative and suggestive function of the brand, also due to the huge advertising investments made by the owner of the brand itself, and able to go beyond the limits of the affinity of the product sector to which the brand belongs.

In fact, we talk about « ultra-market » protection – which is independent of the likelihood of confusion referred to in sub-letter b) – which can be invoked when certain conditions are met.

First of all, the owner has the burden of proving that his own sign is well-known, both at a territorial level and with reference to the interested public.

But what does reputation mean and what are the assumptions needed? In the silence of the law, the case law, with the famous General Motors ruling (EC Court of Justice, 14 September 1999, C-375/97) defined it as « the sign’s aptitude to communicate a message to which it is possible linking up also in the absence of a confusion on the origin », confirming that the protection can be granted if the trademark is known by a significant part of the public interested in the products or services it distinguishes. »

According to the Court, among the parameters that the national court must take into account in determining the degree of the reputation of a mark are market share, intensity, geographical scope and duration of its use, as well as the investments made by the company to promote it.

Of course, the greater the reputation of the brand, the greater the extension of the protection to include less and less similar product sectors.

The relevant public, the Court continues, « is that interested in this trademark, that is, according to the product or service placed on the market, the general public or a more specialized public, for example, a specific professional environment ».

Furthermore, the reputation must also have a certain territorial extension and, to this purpose, the aforesaid decision specified that the requirement met if the reputation is spread in a substantial part of the EU States, taking into account both the size of the area geographical area concerned as well as the number of persons present therein.

For the EU trademark, the Court of Justice, with the decision Pago International (EC Court of Justice, 6 October 2009, C ‑ 301/07) ruled that the mark must be known « by a significant part of the public interested in the products or services marked by the trademark, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community » and that, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case, « the entire territory of a Member State » – in this case it was Austria – « can be considered substantial part of the territory of the Community ». This interpretation, indeed, is a consequence of the fact that the protection of an EU trademark extends to the whole territory of the European Union.

In order to obtain the protection of the renowned brand, there is no need for the similarity between the signs to create a likelihood of confusion. However, there must be a connection (a concept taken up several times by European and national jurisprudence) between the two marks in the sense that the later mark must evoke the earlier one in the mind of the average consumer.

In order to be able to take advantage of the « cross-market » protection, the aforementioned rules require the trademark owner to be able to provide adequate evidence that the appropriation of the sign by third parties constitutes an unfair advantage for them or, alternatively, that damages the owner himself. Of course, the alleged infringer shall be able to prove his right reason that, as such, can constitute a suitable factor to win the protection granted.

Moreover, the owner of the trademark is not obliged to prove an actual injury, as it is sufficient, according to the case law, « future hypothetical risk of undue advantage or prejudice« , although serious and concrete.

The damage could concern the distinctiveness of the earlier trademark and occurs, « when the capability of the trademark to identify the products or services for which it was registered and is used is weakened due to the fact that the use of the later trademark causes the identity of the earlier trade mark and of the ‘corresponding enterprise in the public mind ».

Likewise, the prejudice could also concern the reputation and it occurs when the use for the products or services offered by the third party can be perceived by the public in such a way that the power of the well-known brand is compromised. This occurs both in the case of an obscene or degrading use of the earlier mark, and when the context in which the later mark is inserted is incompatible with the image that the renowned brand has built over time, perhaps through expensive marketing campaigns.

Finally, the unfair advantage occurs when the third party parasitically engages its trademark with the reputation or distinctiveness of the renowned brand, taking advantage of it.

One of the most recent examples of cross-market protection has involved Barilla and a textile company for having marketed it cushions that reproduced the shapes of some of the most famous biscuits, marking them with the same brands first and then, after a cease and desist letter, with the names of the same biscuits with the addition of the suffix « -oso » (« Abbraccioso », « Pandistelloso », etc.). Given the good reputation acquired by the brands of the well-known food company, its brands have been recognized as worthy of the aforementioned protection extended to non-related services and products. The Court of Milan, in fact, with a decision dated January 25, 2018, ruled, among other things, that the conduct perpetrated by the textile company, attributing to its products the merits of those of Barilla, has configured a hypothesis of unfair competition parasitic for the appropriation of merits, pursuant to art. 2598 c.c. The reputation of the word and figurative marks registered by Barilla, in essence, has allowed protecting even non-similar products, given the undue advantage deriving from the renown of the sign of others.

The author of this article is Giacomo Gori.

Put options on a fixed price are all clear: the Italian Supreme Court confirms the legitimacy of the repurchase agreements regarding company shares (i.e. the agreement by which the buyer undertakes to resell the shares at a later time, upon the occurrence of certain conditions, upon simple request of the seller) without any participation in the occurred losses, and admits that such cases may pass the test for the leonina societas (under Italian law a permanent and total exclusion of some partners from participation in profits and losses is prohibited).

Those who intend to invest, instead of opting for a funding, may become part of the company structure through the acquisition of a participation in the share capital and, at the same time, insure oneself a safe way out.

To avoid suffering any negative outcomes, the silent partner may, through a shareholders’ agreement, agree with the founders of the company his exit through the sale of the equity investment at a given time, under certain circumstances and at the price of purchase. Indeed, there could be room for profit too: the put option, in fact, may include interests in the agreed price of repurchase.

Focus on this new corporate instrument is recommended. It could favour numerous strategic alliances between financiers and entrepreneurs looking for capital.

The author of this article is Giovannella Condò.

The majority principle, a pivotal aspect in limited companies, goes into crisis in situations where the share capital is equally divided between two opposing shareholders (50% each). In such hypotheses the approval of decisions is possible only with unanimity and this, obviously, frequently leads to deadlock situations that paralyze the management of the company.

The irreconcilable dissent among the shareholders can lead to the dissolution of the company. To avoid this, several strategies have been found, and one of these is the so-called “Russian Roulette Clause”.

The Shareholders may agree that, in deadlock situations, the Russian Roulette clause comes into play, with the effect of redistributing the shares and, consequently, starting again the business activity.

The clause provides that, upon the occurrence of certain trigger-event, one of the two shareholders (or both, if so agreed) has the power to determine the value of his/her 50% of the share capital. Consequently, he/she put the other shareholder in front of a simple choice: either buy the shares of the “offering” shareholder, at the price he/she has proposed, or sell his/her own share to the “offering” shareholder at the same price.

Who activates the Russian roulette determines the price, which remains fix. The unilateral determination of the price is balanced by the fact that the offeror does not know if she shall buy or sell at the established price: the final choice, in fact, is up to the offeree, who has not determined the price.

The author of this article is Giovannella Condò.

The Italian Budget Law for 2017 (Law No. 232 of 11 December 2016), with the specific purpose of attracting high net worth individuals to Italy, introduced the new article 24-bis in the Italian Income Tax Code (“ITC”) which regulates an elective tax regime for individuals who transfer their tax residence to Italy.

The special tax regime provides for the payment of an annual substitutive tax of EUR 100.000,00 and the exemption from:

  • any foreign income (except specific capital gains);
  • tax on foreign real estate properties (IVIE ) and tax on foreign financial assets (IVAFE);
  • the obligation to report foreign assets in the tax return;
  • inheritance and gift tax on foreign assets.

Eligibility

Persons entitled to opt for the special tax regime are individuals transferring their tax residence to Italy pursuant to the Italian law and who have not been resident in Italy for tax purposes for at least nine out of the ten years preceding the year in which the regime becomes effective.

According to art. 2 of the ITC, residents of Italy for income tax purposes are those persons who, for the greater part of the year, are registered within the Civil Registry of the Resident Population or have the residence or the domicile in Italy under the Italian Civil Code. About this, it is worth noting that persons who have moved to a black listed jurisdiction are considered to have their tax residence in Italy unless proof to the contrary is provided.

According to the Italian Civil Code, the residence is the place where a person has his/her habitual abode, whilst the domicile is the place where the person has the principal center of his businesses and interests.

Exemptions

The special tax regime exempts any foreign income from the Italian individual income tax (IRPEF).

In particular the exemption applies to:

  • income from self-employment generated from activities carried out abroad;
  • income from business activities carried out abroad through a permanent establishment;
  • income from employment carried out abroad;
  • income from a property owned abroad;
  • interests from foreign bank accounts;
  • capital gains from the sale of shares in foreign companies;

However, according to an anti-avoidance provision, the exemption does not apply to capital gains deriving from the sale of “substantial” participations that occur within the first five tax years of the validity of the special tax regime. “Substantial” participations are, in particular, those representing more than 2% of the voting rights or 5% of the capital of listed companies or 20% of the voting rights or 25% of the capital of non-listed companies.

Any Italian source income shall be subject to regular income taxation.

It must be underlined that, under the special tax regime no foreign tax credit will be granted for taxes paid abroad. However, the taxpayer is allowed to exclude income arising in one or more foreign jurisdictions from the application of the special regime. This income will then be subject to the ordinary tax rule and the foreign tax credit will be granted.

The special tax regime exempts the taxpayer also from the obligation to report foreign assets in the annual tax return and from the payment of the IVIE and the IVAFE.

Finally, the special tax regime provides for the exemption from the inheritance and gift tax with regard to transfers by inheritance or donations made during the period of validity of the regime. The exemption is limited to assets and rights existing in the Italian territory at the time of the donation or the inheritance.

Substitutive Tax and Family Members

The taxpayer must pay an annual substitutive tax of EUR 100,000 regardless of the amount of foreign income realised.

The special tax regime can be extended to family members by paying an additional EUR 25,000 substitutive tax for each person included in the regime, provided that the same conditions, applicable to the qualifying taxpayer, are met.

In particular, the extension is applicable to

  • spouses;
  • children and, in their absence, the direct relative in the descending line;
  • parents and, in their absence, the direct relative in the ascending line;
  • adopters;
  • sons–in-law and daughters-in-law;
  • fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law;
  • brothers and sisters.

How to apply

The option shall be made either in the tax return regarding the year in which the taxpayer becomes resident in Italy, or in the tax return of the following year.

Qualifying taxpayer may also submit a non-binding ruling request to the Italian Revenue Agency, in order to prove that all requirements to access the special regime are met. The ruling can be filed before the transfer of the tax residence to Italy.

The Revenue Agency shall respond within 120 days as from the receipt of the request. The reply is not binding for the taxpayer, but it is binding for the Revenue Agency.

If no ruling request is filed, the same information provided in the request must be provided together with the tax return where the election is made.

Termination

The option for the special tax regime is automatically renewed each year and it ends, in any case, after fifteen years from the first tax year of validity. However, the option can be revoked by the taxpayer at any time.

In case of termination or revocation, family members included in the election are also automatically excluded from the regime.

After the ordinary termination or revocation, it is no longer possible to apply for the special tax regime.

The author of this post is Valerio Cirimbilla.

On 25 May 2018, the EU Regulation 2016/679 came into force, concerning the « protection » of personal data (hereinafter the « Regulation » or « GDPR »). It is a Community legislative instrument aimed at strengthening the right of natural persons to have their personal data protected, which has been elevated to « fundamental right » in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 8 paragraph 1) and in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 16 paragraph 1).

The Regulation has a direct application in Italian law and does not require any implementation by the national legislator. These provisions prevail over national laws. From a practical standpoint, this means that, in the event of a conflict between a provision contained in the Regulations and one provided for in the « old » Legislative Decree 196/2003, the earlier would prevail over the latter.

The GDPR consists of 99 articles, of which only some constitute an in comparison with the preceding regime and bear specific relevance for the owners/managers of accommodation facilities.

Indeed, the first novelty concerns the « explicit consent » for the processing of « sensitive » data and the decisions based on automated processing (including profiling -Article 22- ). It is, in fact, necessary for the client to express his consent in relation to the processing of these data independently of that relating to other data. The consent obtained before 25 May 2018 remains valid only if it meets the requirements below.

It is required, for example, that the data owners modify their websites or promotional newsletters addressed to the customers. The latter need to be aware of the purposes for which the data is collected and of rights to which they are entitled. In order to subscribe to the newsletter, only the email address should be necessary, and if the owners request for more data, the purposes of such request ought to be specified. Before sending the subscription request, the customer must give his consent and accept the privacy policy. The privacy statement must be clearly accessible from the home page of the website. In particular, as to the newsletter, the privacy policy must also be indicated and linked in the relevant registration box.

Substantial changes were also introduced in relation to the duties of the Data Controller and the Data Processor. Both profiles are important in the hotel industry.

Now the Data Controller must (i) be able to prove that the data subject has consented to a specific processing, (ii) provide the contact details of the Data Protection Officer, (iii) declare the eventual transfer of the personal data towards third countries and, if so, through which means the transfer takes place, (iv) specify the retention period of the data or the criteria employed to establish the retention period, as well as the right to file a complaint with the supervisory authority; (v) indicate whether the processing involves automated decision-making processes (including profiling), and the expected consequences for the data subject concerned.

The Data Protection Officer (“DPO”), on the other hand, is a professional (who can be internal or external to the structure) who guarantees the observance of the rules of the GPDR and the management and processing of the data.

According to the new Regulation, the duties of this professional concern: (i) the keeping of the data processing reports (pursuant to Article 30, paragraph 2, of the Regulation), and (ii) the adoption of suitable technical and organisational measures to get the safety of the procedures (pursuant to Article 32 of the Regulation).

The name of the DPO must be indicated in the privacy policy to be delivered to the customer. The relationship between the data protection officer and the data controller is governed by a contract that must strictly regulate the subjects set forth in paragraph 3 of the article 28 in order to demonstrate that the manager provides « sufficient guarantees » for the correct management and processing of data. The Officer can appoint a « sub-manager » but only for limited processing activities, in compliance with the provisions of the contract, and responds to the non-compliance of the sub-manager.

In light of these provisions, the hotels will then have to make a more careful assessment of the risk deriving from data processing, prepare a detailed procedure as to enable the constant monitoring on, amongst others, the suitability of the treatment, and promptly notify a breach of the security procedure which involves the accidental disclosure of data, adapt its information to be delivered to the customer.

Finally, it is worth noting that the penalties for violations of the GDPR can be very significant and reach up to 4% of the company’s turnover. As such, they are far more severe than those previously specified. It is, therefore, necessary to pay close attention to compliance with the GDPR since an incorrect or defective application can cause severe prejudices to the company.

The author of this post is Giovanni Izzo.

Over the last year, the escalation of cryptocurrencies has aroused a number of issues and controversial debates for the lack of regulation in most jurisdictions, including Italy where the only regulation of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is set by the AML legislation. According to the Italian law, cryptocurrencies do not have legal tender status, the regulators have qualified cryptocurrencies as means of exchange different from e-money, which, however, can be converted into Euro for purchasing virtual currency as for selling such currency; moreover, they can be used to buy both virtual and real goods and services. As a matter of fact, the lack of regulation concerning cryptocurrencies as a form of currency and a financial instrument does not prevent the trade and use of cryptocurrencies not only as means of payment but also as contribution to fund the share capital of limited liability companies.

On July, 18th, the Court of Brescia has denied the validity of a resolution increasing the share capital of a limited liability company subscribed for by certain utility tokens because the relevant contribution (equal to Euro 714,000) didn’t comply with Article 2464 of the Civil Code. The Court has not banned the contribution of cryptocurrencies but based on that case it has remarked the criteria governing contributions in kind which were not met for the subscription of the increase of share capital as resolved by the company; giving that, and starting from this assumption, it is possible to highlight criteria requested by the Italian law to contribute cryptocurrencies into share capital.

Any (tangible and intangible) asset can be contributed into the share capital of joint-stock companies (S.p.A.) and limited liability companies (S.r.l.) to the extent that they have an indisputable economic value (as proved by a sworn appraisal from an expert who issues the relevant report) and a potential market where they can be exchanged and/or converted into cash. The report must be focused on the description of the contributed assets, the reference of the adopted criteria of evaluation, and the certification that their value is, at least, equal to the one assigned at the moment of the subscription of the capital and of the premium, if any. As a matter of fact, the function of the share capital is to guarantee the creditors in relation to the company liabilities, as a consequence it is mandatory that the economic value of the share capital must be indisputable and in compliance with the law, especially when including cryptocurrencies or digital assets.

Moving on the case, the cryptocurrencies contributed were issued by a company based in Bulgaria, they were utility tokens used as mean of payment for buying goods and services on a web platform, owned by the issuers of these digital assets. Hence these tokens were not traded in any exchange platform where it is possible to fix an indisputable exchange rate and then the relevant economic value. Indeed, the Court has reasoned the direct proportion between the value of the contribution into the equity and the existence of exchanges where the value of the cryptocurrency would have been set. Moreover, the Court has stated the lack of enforceability of the tokens contributed. Under the practical side, the contribution of cryptocurrencies has to be made by reporting the private key from the contributor to the company, giving that the enforceability of cryptocurrencies by a pledge can be done subject to the collaboration and the consent of the contributor who has to disclose the private key; should the contributor refuse to disclose the private key, the enforceability of the pledge on the tokens would be undermined.

To sum up, in theory the contribution of cryptocurrencies into equity is not forbidden under the Italian law, however giving its questionable nature, it is still controversial how to guarantee the compliance with the mandatory requirements for the contribution in kind.

This case history and the order of the Court of Brescia give us the opportunity to provide the Italian picture on cryptocurrencies.

The Italian crypto-scenario is quite effervescent since the beginning of 2017; indeed, Italy was the first European country to define the virtual currency and the exchanger according to the new AML legislation. This is not strange considering that the anonymity surrounding cryptocurrencies, which varies from complete anonymity to pseudo-anonymity, prevents cryptocurrency transactions from being adequately monitored, allowing shady transactions to occur outside of the regulatory perimeter and criminal organisations to use cryptocurrencies to obtain easy access to « clean cash ». Anonymity is also the major issue when it comes to tax evasion.

The AML Law

Legislative Decree no. 90 of May 25th 2017, which reformed legislative decree no. 231/2007, introduced definitions of exchanges and virtual currencies and provided a set of rules for the exchanges to comply with the anti-money laundering rules.

Virtual currency means “a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor attached to a legally established fiat currency, which can be used as a means of exchange for the purchase of goods and services and transferred, stored and traded electronically.” Virtual currencies within the scope of AMLD5 and of the Italian AML Law are those that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically. Until now, other virtual currency schemes are not in scope, including virtual currencies used to attain goods and services without requiring exchange into legal tender or similar instruments, or the use of a custodian wallet provider.

Exchanges are defined as virtual service providers: “any natural or legal person providing professional services to third parties for the use, the exchange, the related storage of virtual currencies and for the conversion from or in currencies having legal tender [.]” Given this scope, they are subject to anti-money laundering regulations and, therefore, they have to obtain a sort of licence and be listed in a special register to operate in Italy. Considering this definition, it seems that a material number of key players are not included in AML law, for example miners and pure cryptocurrency exchanges that are not custodian wallet providers, hardware and software wallet providers, trading platforms and coin offerors. This choice of the legislator leaves blind spots in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion. However, a decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is under discussion, which seeks to extend the monitoring not only to exchanges but also to those subjects that accept cryptocurrencies for the sale of services and goods.

As said, apart from the AML Law, there is a lack of regulation which undermines the grade of protection of users and investors.

The protection of users/investors

One of the issues which prevents or undermines the grade of the protection is that crypto markets and crypto players can be located in jurisdictions that do not have effective money laundering and terrorist financing controls in place or do not have any regulation for their offering to the investors. Moreover, against the risk of default of the platform or the exchanges there is very little to do to protect investors especially at a cross-border level.

The protection of users/investors depends on several factors, the first one being the nature of the cryptocurrencies in question and the crypto-platforms (i.e. what they are, where they are based and whether they are compliant with the Italian law).

The nature of the cryptocurrencies has to be identified on a case-by-case basis. If qualified as securities (standard financial products which are transferable and generate profits), the prospectus rules should apply, this meaning that a prospectus is required under the Consolidated Financial Law (“Testo Unico Finanza” or “TUF”) to disclose significant financial risks to investors. If they are a hybrid made up of a means of payment and an investment component, the application of the TUF provisions is controversial.

From a criminal perspective, users/investors can be protected in case of fraud irrespective of the above factors. The general remedies under the criminal law apply.

The landmarks for investors’ protection are:

  • The AML Law defining the subjects obliged to declare their activities in the cryptocurrencies world (e. the custodian wallet providers and the virtual currency exchanges);
  • The TUF rules, inter alia, the prospectus regulation; and
  • The Consumers’ Code rules the mandatory provisions on the « form and pre-contractual information ».

The common ground of civil actions is the disclosure of pre-contractual information to investors and the compliance of crypto-platforms and exchanges with the Italian law.

Civil actions might be brought against platforms:

  • Pursuant to Articles 50 and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, according to which any contract must provide consumers with mandatory « pre-contractual information ».
  • Pursuant to Article 23 of the TUF, according to which any contract providing investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

In 2017, the Court of Verona declared a contract null and void because of its breach of the mandatory provisions on the « form and pre-contractual information » and ordered the refund of the money to the consumer. From the consumers’ perspective, all the information about the nature, the risks and the features of any cryptocurrency must be provided in advance to individuals in a transparent manner. As a matter of fact, the Court of Verona has reasoned that any online agreement between parties, implying the exchange of real money for virtual money, represents a financial service or rather “a paid service.” The Court judged that the contract between the exchange and the Italian consumer was null and void, as the IT service firm breached the obligations set forth by Articles 50 on « distance contracts » and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, which provide as mandatory the « form and pre-contractual information » to be provided to consumers. Lastly, the Court ordered to return to the Italian plaintiff the amount invested in cryptocurrencies.

For the sake of completeness, the consumers’ protection has been achieved also by the Italian Antitrust Authority (i.e. the non-governmental organization focused on consumer protection), which stopped the operations of several affiliates of OneCoin, the digital currency investment scheme widely accused of fraud.

In 2017, Consob (National Authority for the Stock Exchange) banned the advertisement and then the offer of investment portfolios containing cryptocurrencies, made in breach of the prospectus regulation.

Pursuant to Article 101, Par. 4, Part c) of the TUF, Consob has prohibited the advertising – via the website www.coinspace1.com – of the public offer for ‘cryptocurrency extraction packages’ launched by Coinspace Ltd (Resolution no. 19968 of April 20th 2017). The offer had already been the subject of a precautionary 90-day suspension. Moreover, on December 6th, 2017, pursuant to resolution no. 20207, under Article 99, paragraph 1, letter d) of the TUF, Consob banned the offer to the Italian public of « investment portfolios » carried out without the required authorizations by Cryp Trade Capital through the website https://cryp.trade. A few months later, in March 2018, the website https://cryp.trade was subjected to precautionary seizure by the Criminal Court of Rome pursuant to Article 166 of the TUF (a criminal provision which punishes those who carry out financial services and activities without Consob’s authorization). The common ground of these resolutions issued by Consob is the absolute lack of the mandatory information and prospectus set forth by the TUF for entities providing financial services to Italian investors trading in cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related products. Given the application of the TUF, pursuant to Article 23, any contracts for the provision of investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

Both resolutions have remarked how the Italian versions of the websites were the evidence that those offers were targeted to the Italian market, therefore Consob has set the criteria to identify the territoriality of the crypto-platforms subject to the Italian law which is: “where the cryptocurrencies are intended to be offered to the public”.

To complete this overview, some highlights follow on ICOs and the tax regime of cryptocurrencies in Italy.

ICOs

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are not regulated by the Italian law. In ICOs the funding collected by a start-up could also be exchanged for an equity token (very similar to securities and then embodying an interest in the issuing start-up) or a utility token, which entitles the holder to exchange it for goods or services provided by the same start-up.

ICOs are very controversial (even if not yet officially banned by Consob), as they issue equity tokens that, due to their similarity to securities, can be offered to the public of investors only by entities duly authorized by the regulators, according to the TUF. As far as utility tokens, in theory their issuance might be allowed subject to a strict set of contractual rules, in order to protect investors as much as possible. However, the ICOs market has not taken off, yet.

The tax regime

For Italian tax purposes, the taxation of cryptocurrencies is not regulated by Law. Nonetheless, the Italian Revenue Agency issued a Ruling in May 2018 providing that gains on virtual currency for individuals trading outside a business activity are treated as gains arising from the disposal of traditional foreign currency. Consequently, gains relating to forward sale are always taxable, rather gains relating to forward sale are taxable only to the extent that, during the tax period, the average amount of the overall virtual currency maintained by the taxpayer exceeds the equivalent of EUR 51,645.69 for seven days in a row (the exchange rate to use is the one given by the website where the individual carried out the transaction). Any gain is therefore subject to 26% withholding tax. Additionally, the taxpayer must comply with the tax monitoring duties in the Individual Tax Return though he is not exempted from wealth tax (IVAFE), to the extent that virtual currency is not held through institutions or other authorized intermediaries by the Bank of Italy.

The same regulatory uncertainty put on the taxation of corporations trading in virtual currency. In a Ruling issued in September 2018, the authorities submitted that exchanges of bitcoins for legal currency constitute, for income tax purposes, a taxable event subject to Ires (24%) and Irap (3.9%).

For indirect tax purposes, the authorities confirmed that trading in bitcoins and other virtual currencies is similar to the activity of an intermediary negotiating in financial instruments, and, as a consequence, it is exempt from VAT under the Italian provision implementing article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive (2006/112). Therefore, when bitcoins are exchanged for real currencies, no VAT is due on the value of the bitcoins themselves.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.

Russian Roulette – The clause for deadlock situations

24 janvier 2019

  • Italie
  • Entreprise

Acquisitions (M&A) in Italy are carried out in most cases through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) or business or business unit (‘asset deal’). For mainly tax reasons, share deals are more frequent than asset deals, despite the asset deal allows a better limitation of risks for the buyer. We will explain the main differences between share deal and asset deal in terms of risks, and in terms of relationships between seller and buyer.

Preference for acquisitions through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) rather than the purchase of business or business unit (‘asset deal’) in the Italian market

In Italy, acquisitions are carried out, in most cases, through the purchase of shareholdings (‘share deal’) or of business or business unit (‘asset deal’). Other structures, such as mergers, are less frequent.

By purchasing shareholdings of the target company (‘share deal‘), the buyer indirectly acquires all the company’s assets, liabilities and legal relationships. Therefore, the buyer bears all the risks relating to the previous management of the company.

With the purchase of the business or of a business unit of the target company (‘asset deal‘), the buyer acquires a set of assets and relationships organized for the operation of the business (real estate, machineries, patents, trademarks, employees, contracts, credits, debts, etc.). The advantage of the asset deal lies in the possibility for the parties to select the assets and liabilities included in the deal: hence the buyer can limit the legal risks of the transaction.

Despite this advantage, most acquisitions in Italy are made through the purchase of shareholdings. In 2018, there were approximately 78,400 purchases of shareholdings (shares or quotas), while there were approximately 35,900 sales of businesses or business units. (source: www.notariato.it/it/news/dati-statistici-notarili-anno-2018). It should be noted that the number of transfers of business also includes small or very small businesses owned by individual entrepreneurs, for whom the alternative of the share deal (though feasible, through the contribution of the business in a newco and the sale of the shares in the newco) is not viable in practice for cost reasons.

Taxation of share deal and asset deal in Italy

The main reason for the preference for share deal over asset deal lies in the tax costs of the transaction. Let’s see what they are.

In a share deal, the direct taxes borne by the seller are calculated on the capital gain, according to the following rates:

  • if the seller is a joint-stock company (società per azioni – s.p.a.; società a responsabilità limitata – r.l.; società in accomandita per azioni – s.a.p.a.), the corporate tax rate is 24% of the capital gain. However, under certain conditions, the so-called PEX (participation exemption) regime is applied with the application of the rate of 24% on 5% of the capital gain only.
  • If the seller is a partnership (società semplice – s.s.; società in nome collettivo – s.n.c..; società in accomandita semplice – s.a.s.) the capital gain is fully taxable. However, under certain conditions, the taxable amount is limited to 60% of the amount of the capital gain. In both cases, the taxable amount is attributed pro rata to each shareholder of the partnership, and added to the shareholders’ income (the tax rate depends on the shareholders’ income).
  • If the seller is a natural person, the rate on the capital gain is 26%.

A share deal is subject to a fixed registration tax of € 200,00, normally paid by the buyer.

In an asset deal, the direct taxes to be paid by the seller are calculated on the capital gain. If the seller is a joint-stock company, the corporate tax rate is 24% of the capital gain. If the seller is a partnership (with individual partners) or an individual entrepreneur, the rate depends on the seller’s income.

In an asset deal the transfer of the business or of the business unit is subject to registration tax, generally paid by the buyer. However both the seller and the buyer are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the registration tax. The tax is calculated on the part of the price attributable to the assets transferred. The price is the result of the transferred assets minus the transferred liabilities. The tax rate depends on the type of asset transferred. In general:

  • movable assets, including patents and trademarks: 3%;
  • goodwill: 3%;
  • buildings: 9%;
  • land: between 9% and 12% (depending on the buyer).

If the parties do not apportion the purchase price to the different assets in proportion to their values, the registration tax is applied to the entire purchase price at the highest rate of those applicable to the assets.

It should be noted that the tax authorities may assess the value attributed by the parties to real estate and goodwill, with the consequent risk of application of higher taxes.

Share deal and asset deal: risks and responsibilities towards third parties

In the purchase of shares or quotas (‘share deal‘), the purchaser bears, indirectly, all the risks relating to the previous management of the company.

In the purchase of business or business unit (‘asset deal‘), on the other hand, the parties can select which assets and liabilities will be transferred, hence establishing, among them, the risks that the buyer will bear.

However, there are some rules, which the parties cannot derogate from, relating to relationships with third parties, that have a significant impact on the risks for the seller and the buyer, and therefore on the negotiation of the purchase agreement. The main ones are as follows.

  • Employees: the employment relationship continues with the buyer of the business. The seller and the buyer are jointly and severally liable for all the employee’s rights and claims at the time of transfer (art. 2112 of the Italian Civil Code).
  • Debts: the seller is obliged to pay all debts up to the date of transfer. The buyer is liable for the debts that are shown in the mandatory accounting books (art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code).
  • Tax debts and liabilities: the seller is obliged to pay debts, taxes and tax penalties relating to the period up to the date of transfer. In addition to the liability for tax debts resulting from mandatory accounting books (Article 2560 of the Italian Civil Code), the buyer is liable for taxes and penalties, even if they are not shown in the accounting books, with the following limits (Article 14 of Legislative Decree 472/1997):
  • the buyer benefits from the prior enforcement of the seller;
  • the buyer is liable up to the value of the business or business unit;
  • for taxes and penalties not emerging from a tax audit by the tax authorities that has taken place before the date of transfer, the buyer is liable for those relating to the year of the sale of the business and the two preceding years only;
  • the tax authorities shall issue a certificate on the existence and amount of debts and ongoing tax audits. If the certificate is not issued within 40 days of the request, the buyer will be released from liability. If the certificate is issued, the buyer will be liable up to the amount resulting from the certificate.
  • Contracts: the parties can choose which contracts to transfer. With respect to the contracts transferred, the buyer takes over, even without the consent of the third contracting party, contracts for the operation of the business that are not of a personal nature. In addition, the third contracting party may withdraw from the contract within three months if there is a just cause (e.g. if the buyer does not guarantee to be able to fulfil the contract due to his financial situation or technical skills) (Art. 2558 of the Italian Civil Code).

Some ways to deal with the risks

To manage the risks arising from third party liability and the general risks associated with the acquisition, a number of negotiation and contractual tools can be used. Let’s see some of them.

In an asset deal:

Employees: it is possible to agree with the employee changes to the contractual terms and conditions, and waive of joint and several liability of the buyer and seller (pursuant to art. 2112 c.c.). In order to be valid, the agreement with the employee must be concluded with certain requirements (for example, with the assistance of the trade unions).

Debts:

  • transfer the debts to the buyer and reduce the price accordingly. The price reduction leads to a lower tax cost of the transaction as well. In case of transfer of debts, in order to protect the seller, a declaration of release of the seller from liability pursuant to art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code can be obtained from the creditor; or, the parties can agree that the payment of the debt by the buyer will take place at the same time as the transfer of the business (‘closing‘).
  • For debts not transferred to the buyer, obtain from the creditor a declaration of release of the buyer from liability pursuant to art. 2560 of the Italian Civil Code.
  • For debts for which it is not possible to obtain a declaration of release from the creditor, agree on forms of security in favor of the seller (for debts transferred) or in favor of the buyer (for debts not transferred), such as, for example, the deferment of payment of part of the price; the escrow of part of the price; bank or shareholder guarantees.

Tax debts and tax liabilities:

  • obtain from the tax authorities the certificate pursuant to art. 14 of Legislative Decree 472/1997 on debts and tax liabilities;
  • transfer the debts to the buyer, and reduce the price accordingly;
  • agree on forms of guarantee in favor of the seller (for debts transferred) and in favour of the buyer (for debts not transferred or for tax liabilities), such as those set out above for debts in general.

Contracts: for those that will be transferred:

  • verify that the seller’s obligations up to the date of transfer have been properly performed, in order to avoid the risk of disputes by the third contracting party, that could stop the performance of the contract;
  • at least for the most important contracts, obtain in advance from the third contracting party the approval of transfer of the contract.

In a share deal some tools are:

  • Due diligence. Carry out a thorough legal, tax and accounting due diligence on the company, to assess the risks in advance and manage them in the negotiation and in the acquisition contract (‘share purchase agreement’).
  • Representations and warranties (‘R&W’) and indemnification. Provide in the acquisition contract (‘share purchase agreement’) a detailed set of representations and warranties – and obligations to indemnify in the event of non-compliance – to be borne by the seller in relation to the situation of the company (‘business warranties‘: balance sheet; contracts; litigation; compliance with environmental regulations; authorizations for the conduct of business; debts; receivables, etc.). Negotiations on representations and warranties normally are carried on taking into account the outcomes of due diligence. Contractual representations and warranties on the situation of the company (‘business warranties‘) and contractual obligation to indemnify, are necessary in share deals in Italy, as in the absence of such clauses the buyer cannot obtain from the seller (except in extraordinary circumstances) compensation or indemnity if the situation of the company is different from that considered at the time of purchase.
  • Guarantees for the buyer. Means of ensuring that the buyer will be indemnified in the event of breach of representations and warranties. Among them: (a) the deferment of payment of part of the price; (b) the payment of part of the price in an escrow account for the duration of the liabilities arising from the representations and warranties and, in case of disputes between the parties, until the dispute is settled; (c) bank guarantee; (d) W&I policy: insurance contract covering the risk of the buyer in case of breach of representations and warranties, up to a maximum amount (and excluding certain risks).

Other factors influencing the choice between share deal and asset deal

Of course, the choice to carry out an acquisition operation in Italy through a share deal or an asset deal also depends on other factors, in addition to the tax cost of the transaction. Here are some of them.

  • Purchase of part of the business. The parties chose the asset deal when the transaction does not involve the purchase of the entire business of the target company but only a part of it (a business unit).
  • Situation of the target company. The buyer prefers the asset deal when the situation of the target company is so problematic that the buyer is not willing to assume all the risks arising from the previous management, but only part of them.
  • Maintenance of a role by the seller. The share deal is a better option when the seller will keep a role in the target company. In this case, the seller frequently retains, in addition to a role as director, a minority shareholdings, with exit clauses (put and call rights) after a certain period of time. The exit clauses often link the price to future results and, therefore, in the interest of the buyer, motivate the seller in his/her role as director, and, in the interest of the seller, put a value on the company’s earnings potential, not yet achieved at the time of purchase.

According to the article 20 of the Italian Code of Intellectual Property, the owner of a trademark has the right to prevent third parties, unless consent is given, from using:

  1. any sign which is identical to the trademark for goods or services which are identical to those for which the trademark is registered;
  2. any sign that is identical or similar to the registered trademark, for goods or services that are identical or similar, where due to the identity or similarity between the goods or services, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, that can also consist of a likelihood of association of the two signs;
  3. any sign which is identical with or similar to the registered trademark in relation to goods or services which are not similar, where the registered trademark has a reputation in the Country and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark.

Similar provisions can be found in art. 9, n. 2 of the EU Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union Trademark, even if in such a case the provision concerns trademarks that have a reputation.

The first two hypotheses concern the majority of the brands and the conflict between two signs that are identical for identical products or services (sub a), so-called double identity, or between two brands that are identical or similar for identical or similar products or services, if due to the identity or similarity between the signs and the identity or affinity between the products or services, there may be a risk of confusion for the public (sub b).

By « affinity » we mean a product similarity between the products or services (for example between socks and yarns) or a link between the needs that the products or services intended to satisfy (as often happens in the fashion sector, where it is usual for example that the same footwear manufacturer also offers belts for sale). It is not by chance that, although the relevance is administrative and the affinity is not defined, at the time of filing the application for registration of a trademark, the applicant must indicate the products and / or services for which he wants to obtain the protection choosing among assets and services present in the International Classification of Nice referred to the related Agreement of 1957 (today at the eleventh edition issued on 01.01.2019). Indeed, following the leading IP Translator case (Judgment of the EU Court of Justice of 19 June 2012, C-307/10), the applicant is required to identify, within each class, the each good or service for which he invokes the protection, so as to correctly delimit the protection of the brand.

Beyond the aforementioned ordinary marks, there are some signs that, over time, have acquired a certain notoriety for which, as envisaged by the hypothesis sub c), the protection also extends to the products and / or services that are not similar (even less identical) to those for which the trademark is registered.

The ratio underlying the aforementioned rule is to contrast the counterfeiting phenomenon due to the undue appropriation of merits. In the fashion sector, for example, we often see counterfeit behaviors aimed at exploiting parasitically the commercial start-up of the most famous brands in order to induce the consumer to purchase the product in light of the higher qualities – in the broad sense – of the product.

The protection granted by the regulation in question is therefore aimed at protecting the so-called « selling power » of the trademark, understood as a high sales capacity due to the evocative and suggestive function of the brand, also due to the huge advertising investments made by the owner of the brand itself, and able to go beyond the limits of the affinity of the product sector to which the brand belongs.

In fact, we talk about « ultra-market » protection – which is independent of the likelihood of confusion referred to in sub-letter b) – which can be invoked when certain conditions are met.

First of all, the owner has the burden of proving that his own sign is well-known, both at a territorial level and with reference to the interested public.

But what does reputation mean and what are the assumptions needed? In the silence of the law, the case law, with the famous General Motors ruling (EC Court of Justice, 14 September 1999, C-375/97) defined it as « the sign’s aptitude to communicate a message to which it is possible linking up also in the absence of a confusion on the origin », confirming that the protection can be granted if the trademark is known by a significant part of the public interested in the products or services it distinguishes. »

According to the Court, among the parameters that the national court must take into account in determining the degree of the reputation of a mark are market share, intensity, geographical scope and duration of its use, as well as the investments made by the company to promote it.

Of course, the greater the reputation of the brand, the greater the extension of the protection to include less and less similar product sectors.

The relevant public, the Court continues, « is that interested in this trademark, that is, according to the product or service placed on the market, the general public or a more specialized public, for example, a specific professional environment ».

Furthermore, the reputation must also have a certain territorial extension and, to this purpose, the aforesaid decision specified that the requirement met if the reputation is spread in a substantial part of the EU States, taking into account both the size of the area geographical area concerned as well as the number of persons present therein.

For the EU trademark, the Court of Justice, with the decision Pago International (EC Court of Justice, 6 October 2009, C ‑ 301/07) ruled that the mark must be known « by a significant part of the public interested in the products or services marked by the trademark, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community » and that, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case, « the entire territory of a Member State » – in this case it was Austria – « can be considered substantial part of the territory of the Community ». This interpretation, indeed, is a consequence of the fact that the protection of an EU trademark extends to the whole territory of the European Union.

In order to obtain the protection of the renowned brand, there is no need for the similarity between the signs to create a likelihood of confusion. However, there must be a connection (a concept taken up several times by European and national jurisprudence) between the two marks in the sense that the later mark must evoke the earlier one in the mind of the average consumer.

In order to be able to take advantage of the « cross-market » protection, the aforementioned rules require the trademark owner to be able to provide adequate evidence that the appropriation of the sign by third parties constitutes an unfair advantage for them or, alternatively, that damages the owner himself. Of course, the alleged infringer shall be able to prove his right reason that, as such, can constitute a suitable factor to win the protection granted.

Moreover, the owner of the trademark is not obliged to prove an actual injury, as it is sufficient, according to the case law, « future hypothetical risk of undue advantage or prejudice« , although serious and concrete.

The damage could concern the distinctiveness of the earlier trademark and occurs, « when the capability of the trademark to identify the products or services for which it was registered and is used is weakened due to the fact that the use of the later trademark causes the identity of the earlier trade mark and of the ‘corresponding enterprise in the public mind ».

Likewise, the prejudice could also concern the reputation and it occurs when the use for the products or services offered by the third party can be perceived by the public in such a way that the power of the well-known brand is compromised. This occurs both in the case of an obscene or degrading use of the earlier mark, and when the context in which the later mark is inserted is incompatible with the image that the renowned brand has built over time, perhaps through expensive marketing campaigns.

Finally, the unfair advantage occurs when the third party parasitically engages its trademark with the reputation or distinctiveness of the renowned brand, taking advantage of it.

One of the most recent examples of cross-market protection has involved Barilla and a textile company for having marketed it cushions that reproduced the shapes of some of the most famous biscuits, marking them with the same brands first and then, after a cease and desist letter, with the names of the same biscuits with the addition of the suffix « -oso » (« Abbraccioso », « Pandistelloso », etc.). Given the good reputation acquired by the brands of the well-known food company, its brands have been recognized as worthy of the aforementioned protection extended to non-related services and products. The Court of Milan, in fact, with a decision dated January 25, 2018, ruled, among other things, that the conduct perpetrated by the textile company, attributing to its products the merits of those of Barilla, has configured a hypothesis of unfair competition parasitic for the appropriation of merits, pursuant to art. 2598 c.c. The reputation of the word and figurative marks registered by Barilla, in essence, has allowed protecting even non-similar products, given the undue advantage deriving from the renown of the sign of others.

The author of this article is Giacomo Gori.

Put options on a fixed price are all clear: the Italian Supreme Court confirms the legitimacy of the repurchase agreements regarding company shares (i.e. the agreement by which the buyer undertakes to resell the shares at a later time, upon the occurrence of certain conditions, upon simple request of the seller) without any participation in the occurred losses, and admits that such cases may pass the test for the leonina societas (under Italian law a permanent and total exclusion of some partners from participation in profits and losses is prohibited).

Those who intend to invest, instead of opting for a funding, may become part of the company structure through the acquisition of a participation in the share capital and, at the same time, insure oneself a safe way out.

To avoid suffering any negative outcomes, the silent partner may, through a shareholders’ agreement, agree with the founders of the company his exit through the sale of the equity investment at a given time, under certain circumstances and at the price of purchase. Indeed, there could be room for profit too: the put option, in fact, may include interests in the agreed price of repurchase.

Focus on this new corporate instrument is recommended. It could favour numerous strategic alliances between financiers and entrepreneurs looking for capital.

The author of this article is Giovannella Condò.

The majority principle, a pivotal aspect in limited companies, goes into crisis in situations where the share capital is equally divided between two opposing shareholders (50% each). In such hypotheses the approval of decisions is possible only with unanimity and this, obviously, frequently leads to deadlock situations that paralyze the management of the company.

The irreconcilable dissent among the shareholders can lead to the dissolution of the company. To avoid this, several strategies have been found, and one of these is the so-called “Russian Roulette Clause”.

The Shareholders may agree that, in deadlock situations, the Russian Roulette clause comes into play, with the effect of redistributing the shares and, consequently, starting again the business activity.

The clause provides that, upon the occurrence of certain trigger-event, one of the two shareholders (or both, if so agreed) has the power to determine the value of his/her 50% of the share capital. Consequently, he/she put the other shareholder in front of a simple choice: either buy the shares of the “offering” shareholder, at the price he/she has proposed, or sell his/her own share to the “offering” shareholder at the same price.

Who activates the Russian roulette determines the price, which remains fix. The unilateral determination of the price is balanced by the fact that the offeror does not know if she shall buy or sell at the established price: the final choice, in fact, is up to the offeree, who has not determined the price.

The author of this article is Giovannella Condò.

The Italian Budget Law for 2017 (Law No. 232 of 11 December 2016), with the specific purpose of attracting high net worth individuals to Italy, introduced the new article 24-bis in the Italian Income Tax Code (“ITC”) which regulates an elective tax regime for individuals who transfer their tax residence to Italy.

The special tax regime provides for the payment of an annual substitutive tax of EUR 100.000,00 and the exemption from:

  • any foreign income (except specific capital gains);
  • tax on foreign real estate properties (IVIE ) and tax on foreign financial assets (IVAFE);
  • the obligation to report foreign assets in the tax return;
  • inheritance and gift tax on foreign assets.

Eligibility

Persons entitled to opt for the special tax regime are individuals transferring their tax residence to Italy pursuant to the Italian law and who have not been resident in Italy for tax purposes for at least nine out of the ten years preceding the year in which the regime becomes effective.

According to art. 2 of the ITC, residents of Italy for income tax purposes are those persons who, for the greater part of the year, are registered within the Civil Registry of the Resident Population or have the residence or the domicile in Italy under the Italian Civil Code. About this, it is worth noting that persons who have moved to a black listed jurisdiction are considered to have their tax residence in Italy unless proof to the contrary is provided.

According to the Italian Civil Code, the residence is the place where a person has his/her habitual abode, whilst the domicile is the place where the person has the principal center of his businesses and interests.

Exemptions

The special tax regime exempts any foreign income from the Italian individual income tax (IRPEF).

In particular the exemption applies to:

  • income from self-employment generated from activities carried out abroad;
  • income from business activities carried out abroad through a permanent establishment;
  • income from employment carried out abroad;
  • income from a property owned abroad;
  • interests from foreign bank accounts;
  • capital gains from the sale of shares in foreign companies;

However, according to an anti-avoidance provision, the exemption does not apply to capital gains deriving from the sale of “substantial” participations that occur within the first five tax years of the validity of the special tax regime. “Substantial” participations are, in particular, those representing more than 2% of the voting rights or 5% of the capital of listed companies or 20% of the voting rights or 25% of the capital of non-listed companies.

Any Italian source income shall be subject to regular income taxation.

It must be underlined that, under the special tax regime no foreign tax credit will be granted for taxes paid abroad. However, the taxpayer is allowed to exclude income arising in one or more foreign jurisdictions from the application of the special regime. This income will then be subject to the ordinary tax rule and the foreign tax credit will be granted.

The special tax regime exempts the taxpayer also from the obligation to report foreign assets in the annual tax return and from the payment of the IVIE and the IVAFE.

Finally, the special tax regime provides for the exemption from the inheritance and gift tax with regard to transfers by inheritance or donations made during the period of validity of the regime. The exemption is limited to assets and rights existing in the Italian territory at the time of the donation or the inheritance.

Substitutive Tax and Family Members

The taxpayer must pay an annual substitutive tax of EUR 100,000 regardless of the amount of foreign income realised.

The special tax regime can be extended to family members by paying an additional EUR 25,000 substitutive tax for each person included in the regime, provided that the same conditions, applicable to the qualifying taxpayer, are met.

In particular, the extension is applicable to

  • spouses;
  • children and, in their absence, the direct relative in the descending line;
  • parents and, in their absence, the direct relative in the ascending line;
  • adopters;
  • sons–in-law and daughters-in-law;
  • fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law;
  • brothers and sisters.

How to apply

The option shall be made either in the tax return regarding the year in which the taxpayer becomes resident in Italy, or in the tax return of the following year.

Qualifying taxpayer may also submit a non-binding ruling request to the Italian Revenue Agency, in order to prove that all requirements to access the special regime are met. The ruling can be filed before the transfer of the tax residence to Italy.

The Revenue Agency shall respond within 120 days as from the receipt of the request. The reply is not binding for the taxpayer, but it is binding for the Revenue Agency.

If no ruling request is filed, the same information provided in the request must be provided together with the tax return where the election is made.

Termination

The option for the special tax regime is automatically renewed each year and it ends, in any case, after fifteen years from the first tax year of validity. However, the option can be revoked by the taxpayer at any time.

In case of termination or revocation, family members included in the election are also automatically excluded from the regime.

After the ordinary termination or revocation, it is no longer possible to apply for the special tax regime.

The author of this post is Valerio Cirimbilla.

On 25 May 2018, the EU Regulation 2016/679 came into force, concerning the « protection » of personal data (hereinafter the « Regulation » or « GDPR »). It is a Community legislative instrument aimed at strengthening the right of natural persons to have their personal data protected, which has been elevated to « fundamental right » in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 8 paragraph 1) and in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 16 paragraph 1).

The Regulation has a direct application in Italian law and does not require any implementation by the national legislator. These provisions prevail over national laws. From a practical standpoint, this means that, in the event of a conflict between a provision contained in the Regulations and one provided for in the « old » Legislative Decree 196/2003, the earlier would prevail over the latter.

The GDPR consists of 99 articles, of which only some constitute an in comparison with the preceding regime and bear specific relevance for the owners/managers of accommodation facilities.

Indeed, the first novelty concerns the « explicit consent » for the processing of « sensitive » data and the decisions based on automated processing (including profiling -Article 22- ). It is, in fact, necessary for the client to express his consent in relation to the processing of these data independently of that relating to other data. The consent obtained before 25 May 2018 remains valid only if it meets the requirements below.

It is required, for example, that the data owners modify their websites or promotional newsletters addressed to the customers. The latter need to be aware of the purposes for which the data is collected and of rights to which they are entitled. In order to subscribe to the newsletter, only the email address should be necessary, and if the owners request for more data, the purposes of such request ought to be specified. Before sending the subscription request, the customer must give his consent and accept the privacy policy. The privacy statement must be clearly accessible from the home page of the website. In particular, as to the newsletter, the privacy policy must also be indicated and linked in the relevant registration box.

Substantial changes were also introduced in relation to the duties of the Data Controller and the Data Processor. Both profiles are important in the hotel industry.

Now the Data Controller must (i) be able to prove that the data subject has consented to a specific processing, (ii) provide the contact details of the Data Protection Officer, (iii) declare the eventual transfer of the personal data towards third countries and, if so, through which means the transfer takes place, (iv) specify the retention period of the data or the criteria employed to establish the retention period, as well as the right to file a complaint with the supervisory authority; (v) indicate whether the processing involves automated decision-making processes (including profiling), and the expected consequences for the data subject concerned.

The Data Protection Officer (“DPO”), on the other hand, is a professional (who can be internal or external to the structure) who guarantees the observance of the rules of the GPDR and the management and processing of the data.

According to the new Regulation, the duties of this professional concern: (i) the keeping of the data processing reports (pursuant to Article 30, paragraph 2, of the Regulation), and (ii) the adoption of suitable technical and organisational measures to get the safety of the procedures (pursuant to Article 32 of the Regulation).

The name of the DPO must be indicated in the privacy policy to be delivered to the customer. The relationship between the data protection officer and the data controller is governed by a contract that must strictly regulate the subjects set forth in paragraph 3 of the article 28 in order to demonstrate that the manager provides « sufficient guarantees » for the correct management and processing of data. The Officer can appoint a « sub-manager » but only for limited processing activities, in compliance with the provisions of the contract, and responds to the non-compliance of the sub-manager.

In light of these provisions, the hotels will then have to make a more careful assessment of the risk deriving from data processing, prepare a detailed procedure as to enable the constant monitoring on, amongst others, the suitability of the treatment, and promptly notify a breach of the security procedure which involves the accidental disclosure of data, adapt its information to be delivered to the customer.

Finally, it is worth noting that the penalties for violations of the GDPR can be very significant and reach up to 4% of the company’s turnover. As such, they are far more severe than those previously specified. It is, therefore, necessary to pay close attention to compliance with the GDPR since an incorrect or defective application can cause severe prejudices to the company.

The author of this post is Giovanni Izzo.

Over the last year, the escalation of cryptocurrencies has aroused a number of issues and controversial debates for the lack of regulation in most jurisdictions, including Italy where the only regulation of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is set by the AML legislation. According to the Italian law, cryptocurrencies do not have legal tender status, the regulators have qualified cryptocurrencies as means of exchange different from e-money, which, however, can be converted into Euro for purchasing virtual currency as for selling such currency; moreover, they can be used to buy both virtual and real goods and services. As a matter of fact, the lack of regulation concerning cryptocurrencies as a form of currency and a financial instrument does not prevent the trade and use of cryptocurrencies not only as means of payment but also as contribution to fund the share capital of limited liability companies.

On July, 18th, the Court of Brescia has denied the validity of a resolution increasing the share capital of a limited liability company subscribed for by certain utility tokens because the relevant contribution (equal to Euro 714,000) didn’t comply with Article 2464 of the Civil Code. The Court has not banned the contribution of cryptocurrencies but based on that case it has remarked the criteria governing contributions in kind which were not met for the subscription of the increase of share capital as resolved by the company; giving that, and starting from this assumption, it is possible to highlight criteria requested by the Italian law to contribute cryptocurrencies into share capital.

Any (tangible and intangible) asset can be contributed into the share capital of joint-stock companies (S.p.A.) and limited liability companies (S.r.l.) to the extent that they have an indisputable economic value (as proved by a sworn appraisal from an expert who issues the relevant report) and a potential market where they can be exchanged and/or converted into cash. The report must be focused on the description of the contributed assets, the reference of the adopted criteria of evaluation, and the certification that their value is, at least, equal to the one assigned at the moment of the subscription of the capital and of the premium, if any. As a matter of fact, the function of the share capital is to guarantee the creditors in relation to the company liabilities, as a consequence it is mandatory that the economic value of the share capital must be indisputable and in compliance with the law, especially when including cryptocurrencies or digital assets.

Moving on the case, the cryptocurrencies contributed were issued by a company based in Bulgaria, they were utility tokens used as mean of payment for buying goods and services on a web platform, owned by the issuers of these digital assets. Hence these tokens were not traded in any exchange platform where it is possible to fix an indisputable exchange rate and then the relevant economic value. Indeed, the Court has reasoned the direct proportion between the value of the contribution into the equity and the existence of exchanges where the value of the cryptocurrency would have been set. Moreover, the Court has stated the lack of enforceability of the tokens contributed. Under the practical side, the contribution of cryptocurrencies has to be made by reporting the private key from the contributor to the company, giving that the enforceability of cryptocurrencies by a pledge can be done subject to the collaboration and the consent of the contributor who has to disclose the private key; should the contributor refuse to disclose the private key, the enforceability of the pledge on the tokens would be undermined.

To sum up, in theory the contribution of cryptocurrencies into equity is not forbidden under the Italian law, however giving its questionable nature, it is still controversial how to guarantee the compliance with the mandatory requirements for the contribution in kind.

This case history and the order of the Court of Brescia give us the opportunity to provide the Italian picture on cryptocurrencies.

The Italian crypto-scenario is quite effervescent since the beginning of 2017; indeed, Italy was the first European country to define the virtual currency and the exchanger according to the new AML legislation. This is not strange considering that the anonymity surrounding cryptocurrencies, which varies from complete anonymity to pseudo-anonymity, prevents cryptocurrency transactions from being adequately monitored, allowing shady transactions to occur outside of the regulatory perimeter and criminal organisations to use cryptocurrencies to obtain easy access to « clean cash ». Anonymity is also the major issue when it comes to tax evasion.

The AML Law

Legislative Decree no. 90 of May 25th 2017, which reformed legislative decree no. 231/2007, introduced definitions of exchanges and virtual currencies and provided a set of rules for the exchanges to comply with the anti-money laundering rules.

Virtual currency means “a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor attached to a legally established fiat currency, which can be used as a means of exchange for the purchase of goods and services and transferred, stored and traded electronically.” Virtual currencies within the scope of AMLD5 and of the Italian AML Law are those that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically. Until now, other virtual currency schemes are not in scope, including virtual currencies used to attain goods and services without requiring exchange into legal tender or similar instruments, or the use of a custodian wallet provider.

Exchanges are defined as virtual service providers: “any natural or legal person providing professional services to third parties for the use, the exchange, the related storage of virtual currencies and for the conversion from or in currencies having legal tender [.]” Given this scope, they are subject to anti-money laundering regulations and, therefore, they have to obtain a sort of licence and be listed in a special register to operate in Italy. Considering this definition, it seems that a material number of key players are not included in AML law, for example miners and pure cryptocurrency exchanges that are not custodian wallet providers, hardware and software wallet providers, trading platforms and coin offerors. This choice of the legislator leaves blind spots in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion. However, a decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is under discussion, which seeks to extend the monitoring not only to exchanges but also to those subjects that accept cryptocurrencies for the sale of services and goods.

As said, apart from the AML Law, there is a lack of regulation which undermines the grade of protection of users and investors.

The protection of users/investors

One of the issues which prevents or undermines the grade of the protection is that crypto markets and crypto players can be located in jurisdictions that do not have effective money laundering and terrorist financing controls in place or do not have any regulation for their offering to the investors. Moreover, against the risk of default of the platform or the exchanges there is very little to do to protect investors especially at a cross-border level.

The protection of users/investors depends on several factors, the first one being the nature of the cryptocurrencies in question and the crypto-platforms (i.e. what they are, where they are based and whether they are compliant with the Italian law).

The nature of the cryptocurrencies has to be identified on a case-by-case basis. If qualified as securities (standard financial products which are transferable and generate profits), the prospectus rules should apply, this meaning that a prospectus is required under the Consolidated Financial Law (“Testo Unico Finanza” or “TUF”) to disclose significant financial risks to investors. If they are a hybrid made up of a means of payment and an investment component, the application of the TUF provisions is controversial.

From a criminal perspective, users/investors can be protected in case of fraud irrespective of the above factors. The general remedies under the criminal law apply.

The landmarks for investors’ protection are:

  • The AML Law defining the subjects obliged to declare their activities in the cryptocurrencies world (e. the custodian wallet providers and the virtual currency exchanges);
  • The TUF rules, inter alia, the prospectus regulation; and
  • The Consumers’ Code rules the mandatory provisions on the « form and pre-contractual information ».

The common ground of civil actions is the disclosure of pre-contractual information to investors and the compliance of crypto-platforms and exchanges with the Italian law.

Civil actions might be brought against platforms:

  • Pursuant to Articles 50 and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, according to which any contract must provide consumers with mandatory « pre-contractual information ».
  • Pursuant to Article 23 of the TUF, according to which any contract providing investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

In 2017, the Court of Verona declared a contract null and void because of its breach of the mandatory provisions on the « form and pre-contractual information » and ordered the refund of the money to the consumer. From the consumers’ perspective, all the information about the nature, the risks and the features of any cryptocurrency must be provided in advance to individuals in a transparent manner. As a matter of fact, the Court of Verona has reasoned that any online agreement between parties, implying the exchange of real money for virtual money, represents a financial service or rather “a paid service.” The Court judged that the contract between the exchange and the Italian consumer was null and void, as the IT service firm breached the obligations set forth by Articles 50 on « distance contracts » and 67 of the Consumers’ Code, which provide as mandatory the « form and pre-contractual information » to be provided to consumers. Lastly, the Court ordered to return to the Italian plaintiff the amount invested in cryptocurrencies.

For the sake of completeness, the consumers’ protection has been achieved also by the Italian Antitrust Authority (i.e. the non-governmental organization focused on consumer protection), which stopped the operations of several affiliates of OneCoin, the digital currency investment scheme widely accused of fraud.

In 2017, Consob (National Authority for the Stock Exchange) banned the advertisement and then the offer of investment portfolios containing cryptocurrencies, made in breach of the prospectus regulation.

Pursuant to Article 101, Par. 4, Part c) of the TUF, Consob has prohibited the advertising – via the website www.coinspace1.com – of the public offer for ‘cryptocurrency extraction packages’ launched by Coinspace Ltd (Resolution no. 19968 of April 20th 2017). The offer had already been the subject of a precautionary 90-day suspension. Moreover, on December 6th, 2017, pursuant to resolution no. 20207, under Article 99, paragraph 1, letter d) of the TUF, Consob banned the offer to the Italian public of « investment portfolios » carried out without the required authorizations by Cryp Trade Capital through the website https://cryp.trade. A few months later, in March 2018, the website https://cryp.trade was subjected to precautionary seizure by the Criminal Court of Rome pursuant to Article 166 of the TUF (a criminal provision which punishes those who carry out financial services and activities without Consob’s authorization). The common ground of these resolutions issued by Consob is the absolute lack of the mandatory information and prospectus set forth by the TUF for entities providing financial services to Italian investors trading in cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-related products. Given the application of the TUF, pursuant to Article 23, any contracts for the provision of investment services must be in writing and “failure to comply with the prescribed form shall render the contract null and void”.

Both resolutions have remarked how the Italian versions of the websites were the evidence that those offers were targeted to the Italian market, therefore Consob has set the criteria to identify the territoriality of the crypto-platforms subject to the Italian law which is: “where the cryptocurrencies are intended to be offered to the public”.

To complete this overview, some highlights follow on ICOs and the tax regime of cryptocurrencies in Italy.

ICOs

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are not regulated by the Italian law. In ICOs the funding collected by a start-up could also be exchanged for an equity token (very similar to securities and then embodying an interest in the issuing start-up) or a utility token, which entitles the holder to exchange it for goods or services provided by the same start-up.

ICOs are very controversial (even if not yet officially banned by Consob), as they issue equity tokens that, due to their similarity to securities, can be offered to the public of investors only by entities duly authorized by the regulators, according to the TUF. As far as utility tokens, in theory their issuance might be allowed subject to a strict set of contractual rules, in order to protect investors as much as possible. However, the ICOs market has not taken off, yet.

The tax regime

For Italian tax purposes, the taxation of cryptocurrencies is not regulated by Law. Nonetheless, the Italian Revenue Agency issued a Ruling in May 2018 providing that gains on virtual currency for individuals trading outside a business activity are treated as gains arising from the disposal of traditional foreign currency. Consequently, gains relating to forward sale are always taxable, rather gains relating to forward sale are taxable only to the extent that, during the tax period, the average amount of the overall virtual currency maintained by the taxpayer exceeds the equivalent of EUR 51,645.69 for seven days in a row (the exchange rate to use is the one given by the website where the individual carried out the transaction). Any gain is therefore subject to 26% withholding tax. Additionally, the taxpayer must comply with the tax monitoring duties in the Individual Tax Return though he is not exempted from wealth tax (IVAFE), to the extent that virtual currency is not held through institutions or other authorized intermediaries by the Bank of Italy.

The same regulatory uncertainty put on the taxation of corporations trading in virtual currency. In a Ruling issued in September 2018, the authorities submitted that exchanges of bitcoins for legal currency constitute, for income tax purposes, a taxable event subject to Ires (24%) and Irap (3.9%).

For indirect tax purposes, the authorities confirmed that trading in bitcoins and other virtual currencies is similar to the activity of an intermediary negotiating in financial instruments, and, as a consequence, it is exempt from VAT under the Italian provision implementing article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive (2006/112). Therefore, when bitcoins are exchanged for real currencies, no VAT is due on the value of the bitcoins themselves.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

It is often the case – in practice – that an ongoing commercial relationship builds slowly over time through a series of sales agreements, without the parties ever signing an actual distribution agreement to set down their respective rights and responsibilities.

At first blush this might appear to be a good thing: one can sidestep being bound, especially long-term, to the other party. But on closer scrutiny the solution becomes problematic, especially for anyone operating internationally.

One of the key issues that arises when an international contractual arrangement is not in writing, is identifying the court with jurisdiction over any dispute arising therefrom. In the European Union, the issue is resolved by the provisions of Regulation 1215/2012 (“Brussels I recast”). Pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation, as an alternative to the defendant’s courts, jurisdiction in a contractual dispute may lie with the court in the place of performance of the obligation in question. Next to this general rule are two criteria to identify the “place of performance”, differentiated according to the type of contract at issue. For a contract for goods, it is the place of delivery for the goods; in a contract for services, it is the place where the services are provided.   

Thus, to identify the court with jurisdiction, it is crucial that a contract fall under one of these categories: goods or services.

No doubt this distinction is quite simple in many circumstances. In the case of a distribution agreement, or of a commercial concession agreement, the issue may become thorny.

The European Court of Justice has analysed this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in their judgement of 8 March 2018 (Case no. C-64/17) following the request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese Court of Appeal. The parties to the action were a Portuguese distributor, a company called Lusavouga, and a Belgian company called Saey Home & Garden, that produced articles for the home and garden, including a line of products branded “Barbecook”.

Following Saey’s decision to break off the commercial relationship – notice of which was sent in an email dated 17 July 2014 – Lusavouga brought action in Portugal seeking compensation for the unexpected termination of the agreement, and goodwill indemnity. Saey raised a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Portuguese court, citing their general conditions of sale (mentioned in their invoices) which required that a Court in Belgium be competent for dispute resolution.

The facts thus presented two issues to be resolved in light of the Brussels I recast Regulation: deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a vendor’s general terms and conditions pursuant to Art. 25 of the Regulation shall apply, and, if not, choosing the court with jurisdiction under Art. 7 of the Regulation.

Shall a jurisdiction clause contained within a vendor’s general terms and conditions apply to a distribution relationship?

The supplier company apparently considered their course of dealing with the Portuguese retailer nothing more than a concatenation of individual sales of goods, governed by their general terms and conditions. Consequently, they argued that any dispute arising from the relationship should be subject to the jurisdiction clause identifying Belgium as the court with jurisdiction under those terms and conditions.

Thus, a determination was needed on whether, under these facts, there was a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 25, paragraph 1 of Regulation 1215/2012.

The Court of Justice has long opined that if the jurisdiction clause is included in the general contract conditions drafted by one of the parties, the contract signed by the other party must contain an express reference to those general conditions in order to ensure the real consent thereto by the parties (judgement of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani, case no. 24/76; judgement of 16 March 1999, Castelletti, case no. C-159/97; judgement of 7 July 2016, Höszig, case no. C-225/15). Moreover, to be valid, the clause must involve a particular legal relationship (judgement of 20 April 2016, Profit Investment SIM, case no. C-366/13).

In the instant case, the referring court found it self-evident that the legal relationship at bar was a commercial concession agreement entered into for the purpose of distributing Saey products in Spain, a contract that was not evidenced in writing.

From this perspective, it is clear that the general conditions contained in the Saey invoices could have no bearing on the commercial concession agreement: assuming Lusavouga’s consent had been proven, the selection of Belgium as the forum would have applied if anything to the individual sales agreements, but not to those duties arising from the separate distribution agreement.

What, then, would be the court with jurisdiction for the duties arising from the commercial concession agreement?

Absent any jurisdiction clause, the issue would be decided under Art. 7, point 1 of Regulation 1215/2012, under which it becomes imperative to establish whether a contract is for goods or for services.

The “provision of services” has been defined by the Court of Justice as an activity, not mere omissions, undertaken in return for remuneration (judgement of 23 April 2009, Falco, case no. C-533/07).

With the judgements in Corman Collins of 19 December 2013 (case no. C-9/12), and Granarolo of 14 July 2016 (case no. C-196/15), the Court held that in a typical distribution agreement, the dealer renders a service, in that they are involved in increasing the distribution of supplier’s product, and receives in consideration therefor a competitive advantage, access to advertising platforms, know-how, or payment facilities. In light of such elements, the contract relationship should be deemed one for services. If on the other hand the commercial relationship is limited to a concatenation of agreements, each for the purpose of a delivery and pickup of merchandise, then what we have is not a typical distribution agreement, and the contractual relationship shall be construed as one for the sale of goods.

Once the contract has been categorised as one for services, one must then determine “the place where, under the contract, the services are provided”. The Court specifies that such location shall be understood as the member state of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract  or – as in the case at issue – the actual performance of the same. Only where it is impossible to identify such location shall the domicile of the party rendering the service be used.

From the referring court’s description of the contractual relationship, and from the Court of Justice’s understanding of the distributor’s performance of services, it would be logical to find that the principal location for performance of services was Spain, where Lusavouga “was involved in increasing the distribution of products” of Saey.

It is clear that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor would ever have intended such a result, and they might have avoided it being chosen for them by reducing their agreement in writing, including a jurisdiction clause therein.

By the same token, viewed from the outside, the Portuguese judges’ apparent conviction that the situation was one of an actual dealership contract would leave ample room for debate. After all, a number of elements would lead to the opposite conclusion. However, even in terms of that aspect, the absence of a written contract left room for interpretation that might lead to unforeseen – and perhaps rather risky – consequences.

In conclusion, the wisdom of setting down the terms and conditions of a sales distribution agreement in writing appears clear. This is not only because one can avoid those ambiguities we have described above, but also because it specifies other important clauses stipulated by the parties that should not be left to chance: exclusivity of area, if any, or with respect to specific sales channels, the contract period and termination notice, any duties to promote the product, control over end-user personal data, and the possibility of, and methods for, any online sales of products.