Null contract of international sale of goods. Which Jurisdiction?

With the recent sentence n° 16601/2017 the Italian Supreme Court (“Corte di Cassazione”) – changing its jurisprudence – opened to the possibility of recognizing in Italy foreign judgments containing punitive damages. In this post we will see what these punitive damages are about, under which conditions they will be recognized and enforced in Italy and, above all, which countermeasures may be implemented to deal with these new risks.

Punitive damages are a monetary compensation – typical of common law legal systems – awarded to an injured party that goes beyond what is necessary to compensate the individual for losses. Normally punitive damages are imposed when the person who caused the damage acted with wilful misconduct and gross negligence.

With punitive damages, other than the compensatory function, the reimbursement of damages assumes also a sanctioning purpose, typical of criminal law, also acting like a deterrent towards other potential lawbreakers.

In the legal systems that provide for punitive damages, the recognition and the quantification of the highest compensation, most of the time, are delegated to the Judge.

In the United States of America punitive damages are a settled principle of common law, but ruled in different ways for each State. However, generally, they are applied when the conduct of person who caused the damage was intentionally directed to cause damage or is put in place without regard to the protection and safety standards. Usually they cannot be awarded for breach of contract, unless it also leads to an independent tort.

Historically, in Italy, punitive damages generally were not recognized, because the sanctioning purpose is not consistent with the civil law principles, anchored to the concept that the reimbursement of the damage is a simple restoration of financial heritage of the damaged person.

Therefore, the recognition of punitive damage established by a foreign judgment was normally denied due to a violation of the public policy (“ordre public”), so those judgments did not have access to the Italian legal system.

The sentence n° 16601/2017 of the 5 July 2017 of the Joint Sessions of Italian Supreme Court (“Sezioni Unite della Corte di Cassazione”) however, changed the cards on the table. In this particular case, the plaintiff applied to the Venice Court of Appeal for the recognition (pursuant to art. 64, law 218/1995) of three judgments of District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida that, accepting a guarantee call submitted by an American retailer of helmets against the Italian company, condemned this latter to pay 1.436.136,87 USD (in addition to legal expenses and interests) for the damages caused by a defect in the helmet used in occasion of the accident.

The Venice Court of Appeal recognized the foreign judgment, considering the abovementioned sum merely as compensation for damages and not as punitive damages. This decision was challenged by the unsuccessful Italian party before the Italian Supreme Court, arguing the violation of the Italian ordre public by the US judgment, on the basis of a consolidated juridical opinion until that day.

The Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed the Venice Court assessment, considering the sum non-punitive and recognized the US judgment in Italy.

The Supreme Court, though, took the opportunity to address the question of the admissibility of punitive damages in Italy, changing the previous orientation (see Cass. 1781/2012).

According to the Court, the concept of civil liability as mere compensation of the damage suffered is to be considered obsolete, given the evolution of this institute through national and European legislation and case-law that introduced civil remedies intended to punish the wrongdoer. As a matter of fact, in our system, it’s possible to find several cases of damages with sanctioning function: in the matter of libel by press (art. 12 L. 47/48), copyright (art. 158 L. 633/41), industrial property (art. 125 D. Lgs. 30/2005), abuse of process (art. 96 comma 3 c.p.c. e art. 26 comma 2 c.p.a.), labour law (art. 18, comma 14), family law (art. 709-ter c.p.c.) and others.

The Supreme Court has, therefore, stated the following principle: “Under Italian law, civil liability is aimed not only to compensate for losses incurred by the injured party, but also to reform the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar. Therefore, the US legal institute of punitive damages is not incompatible with the Italian legal system”.

The important consequence is that this decision opens the door to possible recognition of foreign sentences that condemn a party to pay a sum higher than the amount sufficient to compensate the suffered injury as a result of the damage.

To that end, however, the Supreme Court has set certain conditions so that foreign sentences have validity, that is to say that the decision is made in foreign law system on a normative basis that:

1. Clearly establish the cases in which it is possible to convict a party to pay punitive damages; and
2. The predictability of it; and
3. Establish quantitative limits.

It has to be clarified that the sentence has not modified the Italian system of civil liability. In other words, the sentence will not allow Italian Judges to establish punitive damages under Italian law.

As for foreign court decisions, it will be now possible to obtain a compensation for punitive damages through the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, as long as they respect the above requirements.

Extending our view beyond the Italian borders, we notice that punitive damages are alien to the legal tradition of most of  European States: there is the possibility, though, that other Courts of continental Europe might follow the decision of the Italian Supreme Court and recognize foreign judgments which grant punitive damages.

How to prevent this new risk

There are several measures which businessmen can adopt to mitigate this new risk: firstly the adoption of contractual clauses that exclude this kind of damages or establish a cap on the amount of the contractual damages which can be claimed, for example by limiting the value of damages at the price of the products or services provided.

Furthermore, it’s very important to have an overall knowledge of the legislation and case law of the markets in which the enterprise operates, even indirectly (for example: with the commercial distribution of products) in order to choose consciously the applicable law to the contract and the dispute resolution methods (for example: establishing the jurisdiction in a country that does not provide for punitive damages).

Finally, this type of liability and risk may also be covered by a product liability insurance.

With the Legge di Bilancio 2017 (Budget Law), in force since January 1^st 2017, the Parliament has implemented a new strategy in order to kick-start the Italian economy with the adoption of a wide array of measures to support startups and small-medium enterprises both financially and fiscally with the purpose of making them more appealing to foreign investors.

The Budget Law has designed a comprehensive plan that involves certain tax breaks, the possibility for SMEs to raise funds through crowdfunding platforms and for the so-called “innovative” startups (meaning early-stage companies that meet certain criteria set by the law: i.e. high level technology of the company’s scope, R&D expenditure or number of graduates employed, etc.) to sell transfer their tax losses to listed companies. Overall, these tools mainly aim at unlocking the economic system that so far has not proved to be capable enough to provide early-stage startups and SMEs both with financial resources and tax benefits they need to develop innovative assets and scale up their business.

This set of measures can be divided under four groups, based on the relevant purposes:

1. Fostering entrepreneurship and setting up innovative companies;
2. Stimulating private investments directed to innovative startup/small-medium enterprises;
3. Supporting R&D expenditure and
4. Modernizing existing companies’ assets by their digitalization and automation, along with the development of innovative technologies.

Economic relief for setting up new companies

The strategy laid down by the Parliament involves the Ministry of the Economic Development (Mise), the National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (Inail), and other public agencies, such as Invitalia, in order to boost the incorporation of startup companies and the development of innovative SMEs.

As matter of fact, the endowment of the Fund for Sustainable Growth (FCS – Fondo per la Crescita Sostenibile), aimed at providing soft loans to support the incorporation of innovative startup companies, has increased by Euro 47,5 millions for 2017 and 2018, respectively.

Furthermore, the Budget Law has also allocated the same amount of Euro 47,5 millions for both 2017 and 2018 in order to foster self-employment and entrepreneurship. These funds will be managed by Invitalia, the Government agency for inward investment promotion and enterprise development, and will be mostly employed to sustain the incorporation of companies by women and young entrepreneurs (aged 18 to 35 years). Invitalia shall be able to grant subsidized zero-interest loans for a maximum of eight years, which could cover up to 75% of total expenses as budgeted for specific investments. Companies will then have to fund the remaining amount as allocated in the business plan and carry out the envisaged investment within 24 months of the signing the loan agreement.

The Ministry of the Economic Development (Mise) has also issued a sets of measures that grant subsidies to support development programs carried out by startup companies with a focus to the acquisition of new machineries and technological equipment; hardware and software technologies; patents and licenses along with non-patented technical know-how directly connected to production/managerial needs.

The Budget Law – pending the approval of the relevant Ministries – also introduces the possibility for Inail to invest in closed-end funds dedicated to innovative startups or to directly set up and participate in technological business ventures.

Streamlining bureaucracy

No need for a notary and exemption from stamp duty and other administrative fees are some of the measures aimed at streamlining the procedure to set up a startup company. It will also be possible to draw up the articles of association and its subsequent amendments through the online procedure by means of  qualified electronic signature.

Tax breaks for investments in innovative start-ups and SMEs

Pending the final approval of the European Commission, the Budget Law has introduced new incentives for those subjects that will invest in startup companies.
Tax breaks concerning this kind of investments are not something new. Introduced in 2012 and originally conceived as temporary, with the Budget Law, these measures has not only been converted into permanent incentives, but also increased from 19% and 20%, for individuals and companies respectively, to 30% with no distinction as to the status of the investor (potential shareholder) for investment capped at Euro 1 million for individuals and Euro 1,8 millions for entities.

Since these tax breaks are aimed at encouraging investments in startups, these benefits are balanced out by the condition that the investment which has benefited from these measures is maintained in the target company for three years (instead of two, as provided for under the previous Budget Law).
Furthermore, the Budget Law has extended these benefits also to innovative SMEs, that is all the small-medium enterprises operating in the field of technological innovation, regardless of their date of incorporation, since these companies will be relieved from presenting a plan attesting their innovative assets programs in order to access the benefits, as provided for previously.

A partnership between startups and listed companies that may benefit both parties

In the accompanying report to the Budget Law, the Government also has stressed the importance of involving listed companies in financing directly or indirectly startup projects and therefore it has introduced the possibility for startup companies to transfer the tax losses accrued in the first three fiscal years to a listed company provided that the certain requirements are met.

The transfer will be conducted according to the rule provided for the transfer of corporate tax credits; the transferee will be called to make up for the benefit received from the transferor and the remuneration paid to the startup will not be subject to taxation.
Through this mechanism, the companies would benefit one another: the startup would find a financial “sponsor” and the listed company would be able to fully offset its taxable income with the tax losses received, considering also the possibility to carry forward the exceeding part to the following year.

Crowdfunding

Through a tweak to the Italian Consolidated Law on Finance (i.e. Testo Unico Finanza), the  Budget Law got rid of some of the restrictions that prevented crowdfunding market to take off in Italy and introduced the possibility for any kind of SMEs to access equity crowdfunding. Previous legislation limited the possibility to raise funds through this system only to the innovative startups thus limiting the development of both SMEs and crowdfunding industry.

While  the rules governing equity crowdfunding will be the same from the operators’ side (i.e. crowdfunding platforms), small-middle size companies will now have a new mean for collecting capital aside from those traditional channels such as bank financing and stock exchange listing.

Tax credit on R&D expenses

The tax credit related to the Research & Development expenses, introduced in 2013, has been extended until December 2020 and enhanced passing from 25% to 50% on all the eligible expenses in R&D activities, with an annual threshold capped at Euro 20 million (five times higher than the previous maximum limit).

Companies will be able to reduce their tax bill and claim compensation as a proportion of their R&D expenditure. The provision is now applicable to all R&D expenses, including the hiring of staff dedicated to R&D activities (with no particular requirement as to their qualification) and to any kind of company (resident and non-resident), group or network of enterprises, regardless of the dimension of the firm, its legal status and industry of reference.

This fiscal incentive can be combined with another one applicable to any employee benefiting the tax incentives provided for under work for equity schemes by innovative startups. Breaking it down, this means that in case the staff carrying out the R&D activities is benefiting of any work for equity plan, the company at issue will benefit of both of the tax breaks.

Development contracts for large investment projects

The development contracts (Contratti di sviluppo) are agreements between the Ministry of Economic Development (Mise), Invitalia and one or several companies (the latter through network contracts) engaged in development projects.

First introduced in 2011, these contracts have been devised to support large industrial/productive investments with a size of at least 20 million euro (7,5 millions only with regards to the agro-food industry).

Development contracts are financed by the Mise, with the participation of the relevant Regions involved (which could also participate in the investment). Invitalia acts as a referent for the promoting companies and it is also the subjects in charge of managing the resources along with the assessment of the applications.

These “contracts” target Italian as well as Italian-based foreign companies and provide financial benefits such as block grants on plant and equipment, soft loans and interest subsidies, whose dimension could vary depending on the size of the company and the type of project at issue (R&D expenditure, innovation-directed investments).

Invitalia sets a fast pace for the admission procedure as well as for the subsequent development plan: once the project has been approved, the companies will have 90 days to submit all the documents required; they will then have 6 months to start and 36 months to carry out the investment project.

As a token of the country’s will to come through, the program also provides for special fast-track courses for particular productive and digitalization-related investment projects.

Super Depreciation and Hyper depreciation

With regard to companies as widely considered, the  Budget Law also extends the extra 40% depreciation deduction (which makes up a total tax depreciation of 140%) through 2017. Then, companies could deduct the expenses borne in order purchase tangible assets whose depreciation rate exceeds 6,5%. The incentive will be applicable only to those assets whose purchase order has been  accepted by the supplier and paid for at least 20% by 31 December 2017.
Aside from this, the Law has introduced a new extra 150% depreciation deduction (the so-called “hyper depreciation” that combined with the existing would make a total 250% depreciation deduction) for the purchase (or lease) of new technological assets, such as digitally-controlled machineries, equipment and so forth (the law outlines the complete range of eligible assets), acquired in order to  atomize and digitalize enterprises.

Sabatini-ter

The Budget Law has also reintroduced the so-called “Sabatini”, a special legislation aimed at facilitating the purchase (or lease) of capital goods by small-medium enterprises by covering part of the interests on bank loans between Euro 20,000 and Euro 2 million, that has been extended until 31 December 2018. A specific and more generous measure will apply to the purchase of new assets connected with the Industry 4.0 plan. Part of the resources allocated will be directed to support innovation, efficiency and the creation of a “digital” industrial system that invests in new technological equipment such as cloud computing, broadband connections, cybersecurity, robotics, mechatronics and so forth.

In conclusion, the above-mentioned measures, applicable to any company based in Italy, represent a strategic milestone in the way to making Italian companies more competitive in the global market, in terms of both technology and financial resources. Given the lack of regulatory barriers to entry, this set of new rules can vitalize the Italian economic system also attracting foreign investors.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

Commercial disputes in Italy can be efficiently resolved by Italian courts (either through ordinary or summary proceedings) or, if agreed upon by the parties, through arbitration.

The court usually decides a case – in first instance – in about three to four years and – in second instance – in about four to five years, while the length of arbitration proceedings is generally shorter (about one year), since it depends on the parties’ terms of engagement and the governing arbitration rules.

That said, the costs of arbitration proceedings are higher than the costs required for court proceedings, while timing of arbitration proceedings are generally faster, especially if the arbitration is carried out under the rules of an arbitration institution (e.g. The Milan International Chamber of Arbitration).

Enforcement of foreign judgments and international arbitration awards

Foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in Italy through different procedures depending on whether the judgment was issued by a court of an EU member state or by an extra-EU member state court.

In particular, any judgment, decision and measure which meets certain requirements, issued by a court of an EU member state and enforceable in that state is automatically recognised in the Italian jurisdiction without any special procedure and/or any declaration of enforceability being required, pursuant to the Regulation (EU) no 1215/2012, Regulation (EC) 44/2001 and the Brussels and Lugano II conventions, when applicable.

Furthermore, for judgments specifically issued by an extra-EU member state court, there are a number of bilateral conventions relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters.

As for international arbitration awards, in 1969 Italy signed the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. As a consequence, Italy recognises foreign arbitral awards as binding and enforces them in accordance with Italian procedural law under the conditions laid down in the New York Convention.

Therefore, in order for a foreign arbitration award to be enforced in Italy, it must be filed with the Court of Appeal of the place of residence of the other party (if it is in Italy) or with the Court of Appeal in Rome (if the other party resides abroad). In this case, the Court of Appeal will only check that the formal requirements of the award are respected, without entering in the merits of the dispute. The court will then issue an enforcement order, where the award becomes equivalent to a judgment capable of enforcement.

Enforcement of Italian judgments and arbitration awards in other jurisdictions

The possibility to enforce Italian judgments and arbitral awards may vary based on the jurisdiction.

In particular, Italian judgments are enforceable abroad pursuant to the Brussels I bis EU Regulation, and to the Lugano Convention, when applicable.

As mentioned above, Italy is also party to the 1958 New York Convention, which is based on the reciprocity principle for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards made in the territory of another contracting state. Therefore, an award rendered in Italy is enforceable in foreign jurisdictions that are party to the New York Convention.

I. Introduction

The 1919 American legal case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company provides a lens through which an analysis of disputes between majority and minority shareholders can start to be conceived. After allowing the Dodge Brothers, already a supplier to Ford, to become minority shareholders within the company, majority shareholder and executive Henry Ford unilaterally decided to terminate special dividends for shareholders in order to maintain further investment in new plants. This measure served as a way to sustain the production of cars at lower prices, a feature of the car manufacturer that Ford saw as tantamount to the public good and, perhaps less ostensibly, represented the preservation of a business model seen by Ford as essential to the Ford Motor Company’s long-term success. The development spurred the Dodge brothers to bring civil action against the Ford Motor Company, citing it as an injustice that deprived them of deserved dividends. In 1919, the Supreme Court of Michigan, ruled in favor of the Dodge brothers and stated that the action of Ford was not justified under the rule of “shareholder primacy,” thereby awarding the Dodge Brothers of the dividends to which they were entitled. The Supreme Court simultaneously decided, however, that the case also shaped the “business judgement rule,” which reserves the right of final judgment to the executive or relevant directors.■ This example testifies to the unmediated conflict between the interests majority and minority shareholders that exists at the heart of a limited company and corporations: namely, the majority’s stronghold over the corporation’s operations and its preference to reinvest the corporation’s profits in the business itself, which fundamentally runs counter to the common desire of minority shareholders to obtain the maximum return on their capital. Further, the outcome in Dodge v. Ford illuminates how, in the case that the majority seeks to abuse its power and circumvent the minority, it is often necessary that the minority exercise its ability to react. ■ The minority shareholder’s “right to control,” which includes the right to be informed and the right to inspect certain documents of the corporation, along with the right to exit, typically serve as the chief devices at its disposal. This derives from the fact that such rights are, in the common practice of law, considered sovereign and do not fall under the majority shareholder’s umbrella right to exercise propriety and “good faith.” In simpler terms, this means that the minority shareholder possesses the principle rights to veto and to exit.

II. Pre-existing Realities of Minority Shareholder Participation

Beyond a situation in which majority and minority shareholders have an already established relationship within a corporation or enter into special arrangements before acquiring or selling an equity interest, this article seeks to approach first the circumstances under which such a relationship lacks clear definition, for example in a succession mortis causa i.e. where the shares are owned by the heirs of a common relative and new minorities are thereby created. This happening typically occurs in family owned corporations in which the rights reserved to the minority shareholders are, therefore, even more crucial. Further, it should be noted that in the absence of applicable provisions within the corporate charter (also known as articles of incorporation), the corporation’s bylaws, and shareholder agreements governing the majority – minority shareholder relationship, the rights protected under the Italian Civil Code (“Codice Civile,” abbreviated as “c.c.”) solely take jurisdiction. On the surface, this would seem to preclude any advantage on the part of the majority shareholder and constitute a neutral majority – minority shareholder relationship. It should be noted that the present examination solely regards the so-called “Società per azioni” (abbreviated “S.p.A.”) “chiuse,” to which the English term “closely held corporations” in the U.S.A. stands as an equivalent. The main feature of a S.p.A “chiusa” is that it does not possess recourse to the risk capital market. ■ Further, unlike “Società a responsabilità limitata” (abbreviated “S.r.l.”) akin to a limited liability company in the U.S.A., shareholders in S.p.A.s do not possess the right of direct supervision over operations of the company. In S.p.A.s, in fact, supervision over operations is reserved to the Board of Statutory Auditors, which oversees that the directors of the corporation act in uniformity and in respect of the law, the charter and the bylaws, thus safeguarding, inter alia, the interest of the minority shareholders. In any case, however, the law stipulates that certain rights on the part of the minority in a S.p.A. are first and foremost reserved, namely the right to inspect some corporate records and the general right to information. These rights are, above all, limited to particular cases such that the shareholders cannot intervene in the corporation’s management, which is exclusively reserved to its administrators. It is important to note that the right of inspection, as protected under Article 2422 c.c., recognizes the shareholder’s right to verify the book of shareholders, which contains the information of all shareholders, in addition to the minutes of shareholders’ meetings.  Such verification can be carried out also by means of an agent and copy of said records can be obtained at his or her expense. This right, however, is limited exclusively to the aforementioned records without offering the possibility to examine the other corporate records indicated under Article 2421 c.c., which include the minutes of the Board of Directors, the Board of Statutory Auditors, etc. Such further records can only be inspected by the directors, the statutory auditors, and other subjects whose duty lies in the control of the corporation, thereby not possessing any limitation in the right of general access to them. This reality derives from the fact that such examination constitutes the necessary instrument by which they can exercise their supervision powers over the company’s administration, organization, and proper accounting in respect to the law, the articles of incorporation, the corporation’s bylaws, the principles of sound management, the administrative system, the accounting system, and the organizing structure of the corporation. That being said, the single shareholder does possess the following channels through which he or she can exercise control over operations within a privately held S.p.A. which the legislature explicitly places at his or her disposal:

(i)                 To file a petition within the Board of Statutory Auditors, denouncing in any shape or form deemed appropriate by the shareholder a behavior on the part of the directors considered outside of compliance related to not adequately addressing proper organizational, administrative, and accounting duties under Article 2408 c.c.. The said denounce must obligatorily be taken into account and relayed to the management by the Board of Statutory Auditors who, if the petition is filed by a proportion of one – twentieth of the equity (i.e. 5%) must, in a prompt fashion, investigate this claim and inform the shareholders’ meeting of the results of the subsequent investigation in the conclusions of its report in the course of the annual shareholder’s meeting. Statutory Auditors have the duty to convene a general shareholders’ meeting in the following cases (a) omission or unjustified delay of such action on the part of directors (b) the recognition of reproachable practices on the part of the directors whose seriousness and urgency recommends that a meeting should be convened as covered under the second section of Article 2406 c.c. (it should be noted that this latter described ability and duty is not necessarily limited to the petition of the shareholders, but instead to the aforementioned practices considered to be of serious weight that must be correspondingly addressed in an urgent manner).

(ii)               Shareholders further reserve the right to report to the Court in case of grounded suspicions that the Board of Directors and the Board of Statutory Auditors are in violation of their fiduciary duties and have committed serious mismanagement that could be the precursor to substantial damages for the corporation or for one or more controlled companies by such a S.p.A. In this case, shareholders who together constitute one-tenth (i.e. 10%) of equity interest have the ability to call for the procession of an investigation, while the cost of such investigation should be borne by the acting parties and as ordered by the Court. If such an investigation finds such a violation to be the case, the delivering of and appropriate decision follows. In the case that the responsible Board members or auditors resign, however, and/or are replaced with a new slate of duly proven professionals, the investigation can be avoided and suspended to a later determined date at the discretion of the Court. These professionals, however, have the obligation to address and eliminate in haste the practices of relevant mismanagement found in violation following the exclusion of their predecessors. The Court reserves the further right to convene a general shareholders’ meeting in the case that it believes the measures that have been undertaken failed to properly address the wrongdoing within the organization in an appropriate manner. In the most serious of cases, the Court can remove the directors and the statutory auditors, appointing a judicial administrator with envisioned powers for a duration deemed necessary.  This individual, as appointed by the Court, therefore, has legal standing and is entitled to exercise the so called “azione di responsabilità” (the “liability action”) namely an action against the directors for their liability for breach of fiduciary duties, as stipulated in the last provision in Article 2393 c.c.

(iii)             Shareholders also reserve the right to exercise the liability action in case of breach of fiduciary duties, namely the breach of the duty of loyalty and the duty of care and in case of mismanagement, on the part of the directors or the Statutory Board of Auditors, as provided in Article 2393 bis c.c.. This action requires the shareholders together composing at least one – fifth (i.e. 20%) of shared capital ownership;  it should be noted that the bylaws might otherwise stipulate a greater threshold than one – fifth, but such can never exceed one-third ownership (i.e. approximately 33%). Article 2393 further specifies that the exercising of the liability action shall not be carried out if shareholders constituting one- fifth (i.e. 20%) of total capital vote to the contrary.  If, however, shareholders constituting one – fifth of ownership approve such a measure, Italian law dictates that the incumbent directors are automatically removed. 

(iv)             The right is reserved to challenge and vacate shareholders’ meeting resolutions (including that relative to the approval of the financial statement as protected under Article 2434 bis c.c.) which are considered contrary to the law or the corporation’s bylaws as by Article 2377 c.c. In order to exercise this right, there must be a number of shareholders comprising one – twentieth (i.e. 5%) of shared capital.  Further, acting upon this right can be accompanied by the commensurate action of the shareholders aimed at recovering the damages produced through the resolution undertaken.  (v) As by Article 2429 c.c., the right to examine, during office hours, the companies’ project of financial statement in addition to the report of the directors, the report of the Board of Auditors, the report of the supervising auditing firm, on top of a summary of the data essential to the last financial statement of associated companies, in the fifteen day period preceding the general shareholders’ meeting scheduled for the approval of the corporate financial statement. 

(v)               The right to participate in the deliberations of the shareholders’ meeting and exercise the right of “veto” in the so called case of an extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting, on second call, involving “modifications of the bylaws, corporation’s name, substitution of its liquidators, and other matters expressly attributed to the extraordinary meeting by law,” as stipulated in Article 2365 c.c. in the case that there exist shareholders who hold a quorum of one – third (i.e. approximately 33%) of the shared capital only in the second meeting.

(vi)             The right to call a summons for a general meeting convened without any delay, under Article 2367 c.c., which can be exercised by any quorum of shareholders constituting one – tenth (i.e. 10%) of shared capital. 

(vii)           The right to call for the postponement of the meeting if not sufficiently informed prior, in the case that shareholders holding a third (i.e. approximately 33%) of shared capital vote for such a measure, pursuant to Article 2374 c.c. 

■ An analysis of the aforementioned critical percentage thresholds necessary for such shareholders’ participation within a closely held S.p.A, in fact, demonstrates that the relevant legal infrastructure provides a meagre pathway to minority representation. Beyond the 5% provision in Article 2377 c.c., which concerns the extenuating circumstance of challenging decisions made by the Board, minority shareholders remain relatively powerless in a private, closely held limited company and without the possibility to challenge decisions made by the majority shareholders (S.p.A. chiusa). Therefore, in order for a minority to be considered “qualified” and have its voice heard within the corporate governance of a closely held Italian corporation, it is necessary for it to hold a) the 5% shareholder ownership, which allows it to petition for the investigation of the Board of Directors or the Board of Statutory Auditors for behavior considered out of compliance (as by Article 2408 c.c.), and to vacate the decisions made in shareholders’ meetings (as by Article 2377 c.c.). b) the 10% quorum for a petition to the Court of the above cited serious wrongdoings on the part of the Board of Statutory Auditors and the Board of Directors, as by Article 2409 c.c., and to convene without hesitation the shareholder’s meeting, as by Article 2367 c.c.; c) the 20% threshold in total shared capital to bring about action of liability against the Board of Directors or the Board of Statutory Auditors, as by Article 2393 bis. c.c., or to oppose the resolution as by Article 2393 c.c. d) the 33% (+1%) quorum for the exercising of a veto in an extraordinary shareholders’ meetings on second call and for the request for the postponement of the shareholders’ meeting as by Article 2374 c.c.

■ Exit (withdrawal). The right to exit is the right of the minority to exit from the group of shareholders. The natural modality of exit is the sale of equity. Standing as the principal alternative to selling shares, in case of external events that place a significant change on the conditions of risk, the shareholder who cannot control such changes within the corporate scheme can employ the prospect of divesting, in full or in part, by means of this right of withdrawal. It is necessary for the shareholder to cite the exact cause, which prompts his or her exercising shareholder’s right to exit by means of withdrawal: namely, on one hand, such that the majority is able, in an informed manner, to influence managerial decisions regarding the corporation’s vitality and, on the other hand, the minority, in the case of feeling as a “prisoner” to the corporation, has a mechanism at its disposal to, in plain terms, get out. The withdrawal becomes, therefore, a powerful instrument of influence to be executed on the majority by the minority shareholder in addition to serving as a bargaining chip, which changes the premise of negotiation initially established by the shareholders, with the induction of specific motives of withdrawal.  The right of withdrawal is disciplined by Article 2438 c.c. withdrawal and is exercisable in the case verified by the following circumstances: a) modification of the corporate purpose that influences in a significant manner the activity of the corporation; b) the transformation of the corporation; c) the transferring of corporate headquarters abroad; d) the revocation of its state of liquidation; e) the elimination of one or more of the causes for withdrawal stipulated within the bylaws; f) the modification of the bylaws that has bearing on the value of the equity interest of the shareholder in the case of his or her exit; g) modifications of the bylaws concerning the rights of voting and administration; h) postponement of its terms; i) introduction or removal of obligations or legal limitation regarding the circulation of shares; l) if the corporation is acknowledged for an indeterminate period of time, the shareholder can exercise withdrawal with a notice of 180 days in advance; m) in the case that the corporation is subject to direction and coordination in the sense of Article 2497 c.c. Relative to the circumstances above cited, it is of fundamental importance to remember how some of these cases, most precisely those indicated by letters a) through g), are causes of withdrawal considered mandatory, that is to say, which are not susceptible to modification even in the case of voluntary compliance on the part of the relevant shareholders, while those indicated by letters h) and i) are subject to change and might be derogated in the case of the approval of the shareholders. The first part of Article 2437 c.c., second section, in fact, explicated, “unless the bylaws stipulate differently,” these causes, referring to those belonging to the first group (a through g), are recognized implicitly as much as independently sustained. One might therefore, configure a partition of the causes for exit into three categories: those legally mandatory, those legally non-binding and subject to change, and those stipulated in the corporate bylaws. For the exercising of the right of withdrawal, it is necessary to respect the modalities foreseen in Article 2437 bis c.c.; further, it should be noted that the exercising of this right involves the liquidation of the equity interest according to the relevant criteria of determination disclosed in Article 2437 part 3 c.c.

The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.