-
意大利
银行业的投资与并购：什么是“合格控股（qualifying holding）”？
8 6 月 2017
- 并购
- 银行业
The Italian legislator has enacted law 19.10.2017 n. 155 “Law. n. 155” or “the Reform”; through the said piece of legislation, the Italian government is entitled to adopt a series of legislative decrees (the decrees should be enacted very soon) aimed, on the one hand, at reforming substantially the Royal Decree n. 267/1942 “Bankruptcy Law”, on the other side, at amending accordingly the so called procedure of “over-indebtedness”.
It is interesting to note that art.1 of the Law n. 155 mandates that the Italian legislator, while adopting the said decrees, takes into account the EU regulation 2015/848, EU Commission recommendation n. 2014/135/EU and, most importantly, the UNCITRAL principles and guidelines.
Art. 2 sets forth some fundamental principles that as well must be followed by the Italian legislator.
First of all, the term “bankruptcy” i.e. Fallimento shall be replaced by the notion of judicial liquidation, in this respect, the criminal rules regarding bankruptcy shall be amended consequently. The so called ex officio (i.e. on Court’s initiative) bankruptcy declaration as provided by article 3 of Legislative decree n. 270/1999 (the law governing the so-called extraordinary administration) shall be repealed. The notion of state of crisis (a relative new notion) shall be properly defined as probable insolvency in the future. The definition shall be shaped taking into account the scientific development in the field of the business and administration science. Nonetheless, the definition of insolvency encompassed at art. 5 of Bankruptcy law shall remain the same.
Art. 2 further dictates that in order to ascertain the debtor’s state of crisis or insolvency a unique model procedure shall be adopted pursuant to article 15 of the Bankruptcy Law. The procedure shall be characterized by speediness, even in the ensuing phase of opposition. Legal standing in order to file a petition for bankruptcy shall be bestowed upon the supervising bodies of the business entity and upon the public prosecutor. The latter shall have the right to file a petition whenever he is aware of a state of crisis affecting the business entity.
The proceedings aimed at ascertaining the state of crisis and or insolvency shall concern every category of debtor. Therefore legal entities and individuals alike shall be subject to the procedure that shall regards: commercial business entities, agribusinesses, artisans, entrepreneurs, consumers, professionals, collective entities with the exception of public entities.
Moreover, the Reform shall adopt the notion of center of main interests (“COMI”) as developed within the framework of EU law and case law.
Preeminence and priority shall be given to the restructuring proceedings whereby the ongoing concern of the business is safeguarded in view of the creditors’ satisfaction. In this latter case, the convenience of the rescue plan needs to be properly illustrated. Liquidation, by contrast, is reserved to those cases where no viable alternative is possible. Abuses in any event should be prevented.
Art. 2 also specifies that the Italian Legislator has to coordinate the new rules with the provisions governing the automated process and those regarding the service process to the certified electronic e-mail couriers which shall be applicable to professionals as well.
One of the main goals of the Reform is to reduce the time and the costs associated to the activities to be performed in the proceedings. In particular, the fees of the professionals involved in the proceedings should be kept under control in order to increment the amount of money to be distributed in favor of the creditors.
Another objective of the Reform is to reframe those provisos whose interpretation has generated a contrast amongst the professionals, the scholars and the courts, in order to favor a construction of the rules consistent with the principles and the purposes established by the Reform.
Likewise, for sake of uniformity and consistency, the Reform backs a process of high-level specialization amongst Courts and professionals involved in the procedures. In order to achieve those goals the Reform moves into different directions.
In this respect, the Courts specialized in enterprise matters shall have jurisdiction over the proceedings and all the deriving litigations regarding enterprises subject to the Extraordinary Administration and large group of companies. On the other hand, the competence for the proceedings regarding the consumers, professionals and minor entrepreneurs shall remain unaltered while for the other procedures shall be competent those Courts that shall meet certain requirements in terms of: (i) the number of professional judges involved in the bankruptcy field; (ii) the number of proceedings that have been dealt with in the last five years; (iii) the number of proceedings that have been completed in the last five years; (iv) the average duration of the proceedings during the last five years; (v) the ratio between the requirements above mentioned and the national average; (vi) the number of business entities registered within the competent records together (vii) with the number of the resident population within the relevant territory of the Court.
Moreover, a list of professionals having the requisites of competence, independence and experience o be appointed as administrator, receivers or commissioners shall be kept by the Ministry of Justice.
Last but not least, the insolvency proceedings shall be harmonized with The European Social Charter for the protection of the employment.
Convertible notes, SAFE Agreements, participative financial instruments: the growing interest in start-up investing has led to a progressive differentiation both in investment strategies and, as a consequence, in legal/contractual instruments so to best suit the investors’ needs.
The introduction of these tools, specific to foreign ecosystems such as the Silicon Valley, and the difficulties in sourcing sufficient capitals to back the development of start-up companies, in particular with regard to the early/seed stage, has encouraged several players to opt for instruments alternative to equity investment, either developed “nationally” or under common law systems.
This mind-set has many positive side effects since it opened up the capital raising landscape that now includes venture capital funds, business angels networks, family offices and even club deals composed of small investors willing to buy into start-ups (mostly over the incubation/acceleration stage) with an injection of capital for a relatively small amount of shares.
In Italy, this trend towards non-equity or demi-equity instruments had two major results: it contributed to dust off legal instruments first introduced by the latest comprehensive reform of the Italian company law in 2004 (e.g. participative financial instruments – in Italian: Strumenti Finanziari di Partecipazione or SFP – art. 2346, par. 6 of the Italian Civil Code); and it fostered the creation of new contractual models plainly inspired by well-known instruments used in the Silicon Valley. That is the case of Convertible Notes and SAFE Agreements (Simple Agreement for Future Equity).
These instruments, together with the SFPs, have a trait in common: they all require a cash investment which is meant to be converted to equity at a specific milestone or on a pre-set date. On the other hand, none of them entails the possibility for an investor to hold a participation as a shareholder (at least not straightaway). Investors become stakeholders instead and they may hold as many administrative/patrimonial rights as they manage to negotiate with the company or with the founders themselves as well as depending on the specific contractual instrument they selected. It is important to point out that profits distribution rights are not included among those subject to negotiation since innovative start-ups (namely 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.) are prevented from distributing profits for the first five years according the pertaining Italian regulation (see art. 25, par. 2 of the D.L. 179/2012).
Convertible Note and SFP
Starting off with convertible notes: these instruments are extremely flexible and mainly used by club deals and family offices. They are structured as a hybrid between convertible obligations and traditional loans. Investors in facts lend money to a start-up on a specific interest rate and according to a contract where the parties have previously set out terms and conditions that would preside over their relationship. The investment is classified as a liability of the company to third parties and, more specifically, as a long term liability.
The parties set two different dates, one for the conversion of the credit to equity and another one for the possible payback (in case the conversion has not been exercised). Sometimes the parties decide to leave the payback aside and set directly the date of the conversion to equity thus transforming the instrument from a demi-loan to an option on a prospective capital increase, where the money invested in the company would be considered as the price of the option; or even an obligation that can be converted to shares, an hypothesis admitted by eminent scholars not only for corporations, but also for limited liability companies.
The conversion date is usually set before the reimbursements, for the latter is meant as the last resort in the event the capital increase has not been approved by the company and provided that the parties had previously agreed upon such possibility. Furthermore, the reimbursement might be considered as a consequence of certain events, in particular when there is a payback request for cause or when a party violates any of the representations and warranties set out in the contract. In order to avoid unpleasant surprises, it is “customary” to provide for a future capital increase specifically dedicated to the investor – as well as an obligation for the investor to convert his loan – directly in the contract. The parties are free to determine whether the conversion should take place on a certain date or subject to the company meeting specific milestones such as: turnover goals, the achievement of specific results both economically and with reference to the development of its tangible/intangible technological assets (for instance, the development of software or the patenting of an invention). The actual conversion may take place at once or in instalments through a resolution of the shareholders to schedule the capital increase in two or more tranches. The convertible note must provide for a price per share for the conversion based on the so-called pre-money valuation; it is quite usual to set also a conversion discount, that is a price per share lower than the per share price paid by other investors in that round.
SAFE Agreement
The SAFE Agreement – developed and used by the world-renowned California-based incubator “Y Combinator” – is neither a debt instrument, unlike convertible notes, nor an equity one since it does not give its holder the right to profit sharing or the right to vote as a shareholder. It is rather a financial instrument that incorporates a prospective right to buy out preferred shares.
Although SAFE Agreements do not have an Italian counterpart, SFPs may look alike when they are “designed” as semi-equity participative instrument (without payback) and used to collect capitals to be allocated in a specific equity reserve, which should be used only to cover the company’s operating losses and be considered otherwise unavailable. However, the extent of this unavailability is still a matter of debate among scholars and the possibility for the parties to a SFP agreement to determine that the reserve at issue might only be used upon depletion of the others (legal reserve fund included) is not undisputed as well. In one of the latest ruling on the matter, the judge has indeed opted for the availability of the reserve created upon issuance of the SFPs on account of its statutory nature, stating that it can therefore be depleted before legal reserve fund and equity (Court of Naples, 25/2/2016). This is basically the main reason why SAFE agreements cannot be implemented tout court in Italy.
In any case, the Italian Civil Code allows the possibility to design the SFPs so as to meet specific requirements since they are essentially “empty boxes” that can be filled by the parties based on the needs of either the issuing start-up company and/or the investors willing to fund it. In fact, the law only sets two guidelines: i) it excludes that the SFP could grant its holder the right to vote as a shareholder; ii) it establishes that these instruments can be endowed with patrimonial or even administrative rights. The possibility for a company to issue SFPs must be specified in the articles of association/bylaws, which refers to a future extraordinary meeting of the shareholders for the adoption of the pertaining regulation, which will also set out the functioning rules of the special assembly dedicated to the holders of SFPs.
Turning to the SAFE Agreement, the American model sets a conversion price that cannot exceed a certain cap, according to which the company assigns shares on a capital increase (i.e. SAFE preferred) with privileged rights and with restrictions closely similar to those typical of standard “preferred shares”. Furthermore, it also sets a discounted conversation price which, in the US experience, is in the range of 15-20%, while there no provision as to a future deadline for paying the investment back.
Nothing prohibits to adapt the regulation of the SFPs to the best practice resulted from the implementation of the SAFE Agreement in the US. That is the case of the “acceleration” clauses that allow the investor to convert its investment before the original date set out in the agreement in case of equity-financing/liquidity events, namely the acquisition of the start-up or a capital increase that brings new investors in. This type of clauses is also often used in convertible notes. Some clauses, on the contrary, cannot be transferred into a SFP. That is the case of the clauses that regard the payback in relation to dissolution events such as: (i) the voluntary suspension of the business activity of the company; (ii) the transfer of the company’s assets to benefit the creditors or (iii) the company’s winding-up process both voluntary and not. According to Italian law, the winding-up due to a total loss of equity implies the possibility to use the reserve destined to SFPs with the consequent loss of the money invested by the SFP holders. Hence the common practice – still debated among scholars – that sees the possibility to use the reserves created upon issuance of the SFPs subordinated to the complete depletion of the other reserves, legal reserve fund included.
Eventually, these practices have taken hold over the last few years since they are meant to provide the investors with more and more flexibility when dealing with financial/investment instruments as those described above. They represent in fact an opportunity for both start-ups, that can obtain capital on the short period, and investors, who can grade their entrepreneurial risk allocating their investment as a debt or not – depending on the chosen instruments – with a view to a conversion to equity that will eventually depend on several factors, not least the company’s business metrics and economical standing.
In conclusion, the dynamism of this sector and the recent intervention of the Italian legislator show that there is plenty of room for growth in the Italian start-up ecosystem.
The author of this post is Milena Prisco.
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:
- Clearly establish the cases in which it is possible to convict a party to pay punitive damages; and
- The predictability of it; and
- 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.
有限责任公司——在意大利中指：“Società a Responsabilità Limitata”或“S.R.L”——可能是最受欢迎的意大利公司的形式，原因如下：
- a) 公司资本数额不是强制性的；
- b) 顾名思义，配额持有者的责任仅限于配额认购资本；
- c) 其为“低成本”和易处理的公司。
请注意一个有限责任公司是不能发行股票的。事实上，参与到资本的是以“无形的”配额作为代表。此为一个有限责任公司的成员被称为“配额持有者”的原因。
在其他国家类似的公司为：在美国被称为L.L.C.；在英国被称为L.T.C；在德国被称为G.m.b.H.；在法国被称为S.a.r.l.；在西班牙被称为S.L.
信息说明
- 公司名称 – Società a responsabilità limitata – S.R.L. (有限责任公司)
- 最低注册资本 – 10000欧元（只有2500欧元，必须在公司支付）, 当资本低于10000欧元时，最低公司资本可低至1欧元并适用特殊的规则和限制
- 配额持有人最低数量 – 一个
- 配额持有人最多数量 – 没有限制
- 配额持有人的国籍 – 没有限制（在一些罕见的例外情况下，必须在具体问题具体分析的基础上核查）
- 主管的国籍 – 没有限制（在一些罕见的例外情况下，必须在具体问题具体分析的基础上核查）
- 有限责任 -是
- 审计 – 不经常需要
成立一个有限责任公司（最低公司资本有10000欧元），需要下列信息与文件。
a) 新公司的名称
b) 注册办事处
一个有限责任公司必须在意大利拥有一个注册办事处（一些法律或者会计事务所提供这样一种“虚拟办事处”）
c) 公司认购资本额和实缴资本额
成立一个有限责任公司，首先配额持有人的银行账户中应持有相当于公司认购资本金的25%的金额。
如果董事要求，未付资本金应在30天内支付。
公司资本金的支付可由以下替代：
- 一份保险单或者银行担保（有一定要求）;
- 实物出资。然而，在这种情况下，法律规定需独立的专家评估和其他手续。
d) 配额持有人的姓名和详细资料
请注意在单独配额持有人的情况下适用的特殊规则和限制。
比如，公司资本应当全部认购，公司的所有文件和记录都应指出公司资本属于唯一配额持有者。否则，唯一配额持有人将与公司承担连带债务责任。
e) 首席董事的姓名和个人信息
首席单独董事或首席董事在公司章程中被任命。
单独董事或者董事们也可不是意大利人但他们应拥有一个意大利财政标识号(“codice fiscal”),其可从任何地方税务局(“Agenzia delle Entrate”)获得。
f) 首席法定审计员的姓名和个人信息，根据意大利法律必要时需提供
g) 年度财政结束日期
h) 公司的期限
下列公司章程和细则应以公证书形式订立：
a) 一份非常标准的包括公司章程的合同，包括了法律上规定的建立一个有限责任公司的所需的所有信息。
b) 公司细则包含了公司管理规则。
公司细则可以通过配额所有人会议的决议来进行修改。
为免配额持有人是一家公司，需要一些额外的文件（例如，由股东会议通过的决议）被翻译成意大利语（被认证的翻译），公证以及认证或者合法化，视情况而定。
公司成立后，应在20日内在意大利公司登记处提交公司章程和细则的副本。在此之前，任何代表公司行事的人都将承担个人责任。
此简介只包含了有关于有限责任公司的基本信息。如果您有任何问题，请随时与我联系。
当银行控股权或投票权达到至少10%或其他相关比例（20%、30%或50%）时，银行参股可被描述为“合格控股”。另外，获得（多数）管理委员会成员的任命权利，或对银行管理产生重大影响的手段，也都属于“合格控股”的范畴。
作为欧洲银行监事，欧洲中央银行（以下简称“欧洲央行”）负责批准对所有成员国银行合格控股的拟议收购。
为何收购合格控股需要获得提前批准？
审批程序旨在确保只有通过审核的合格股东可进入银行系统，以防止任何破坏银行系统运作的行为。
评估尤其旨在确保拟收购方拥有良好的信誉、具有必要的财务稳健性，并确保目标银行必须一直在其要求范围内，同时保证所使用的资金并不来源于犯罪活动。
谁可以获得合格控股？
通常来讲，所有符合评估标准的自然人或法人都可获得银行的合格控股。
评估标准有哪些？
评估标准统一按照欧洲标准。CRD IV列出了五点针对拟议收购的评估要求：
拟议收购方的声誉
拟议收购方是否诚实守信，比如，无犯罪记录或法庭诉讼？
另一方面则是收购方的专业能力，即他们在金融行业的管理、投资成绩。
拟议的新管理人员
的信誉和经验
收购方是否打算对银行的管理机构进行变更？
如果是，则必须对新董事会成员做出适当的评估。
收购方财务稳健
拟议收购方能否为该拟议收购提供资金，并且在可预见的未来保持良好的财务状态？
以确认谁将负责为目标银行的资本附加提供资金。
对银行的影响
银行是否依旧必须遵守审慎要求？
例如，银行不应该被置于压力之下，因为部分收购资金是通过债务融资。
另外，收购方的结构也不应过于复杂，否则会妨碍监管机构有效监督银行。
涉及洗钱或
恐怖主义融资的风险
是否可以证实所涉及资金与犯罪活动或恐怖主义无关？
审查还会评估该收购是否可能涉及或增加潜在的洗钱或恐怖主义融资的风险。
如何作出决定？
拟议收购方向目标银行的国家银行监管机构发出其希望获得合格控股的意向的通知。国家监管机构进行初步评估之后向欧洲央行提供一份提案草案。欧洲央行与国家监管机构合作，做出自己的评估。并将结果通知拟议收购方及参与评估的国家监管机构。
评估不应超过60个工作日。若需要其他信息，在某些情况下评估期限可延长20至30个工作日。
如果在同一时间，两个或以上收购方希望收购同一家银行会如何？
若欧洲央行同时收到多个合格控股意向通知，则必须平等对待。欧洲央行无权就倾向于哪个拟议收购方收购目标银行作出决定。欧洲央行的任务是确保所有拟议购方符合上述五个标准。若多个拟议收购方符合上述标准，那么关于谁将收购目标银行的最终决定将由银行所有者做出。
申请期间，欧洲央行可以提出其他要求吗？
是的，额外要求或是在各国监管当局的提议下或是欧洲央行自己认为有必要提出。然而，对拟议收购方提出的所有要求都必须与上述五条标准有关。若提出的要求会对拟议收购方产生不利影响，则须举行听证会，使拟议收购方有机会做出反应。
若申请人收到不乐观结果怎么办？
若拟议收购被拒绝或拟议收购方认为该收购决定并不乐观，拟议收购方可就该决定向欧洲央行行政审议委员会提出异议。若该程序结果不令人满意，则拟议收购方也可向欧盟法院提出上诉。
若两家银行合并将会如何？会引发合格控股评估吗？
是的，若合并导致一家银行在另一家银行持有10%以上，或CRD IV中规定的其他相关比例（20%、30% 或50%）股份或投票权，则会引发合格控股评估。但是，若合并不意味着收购合格控股权，则适用制度取决于该国家法律。部分欧盟成员国规定必须在合并前批准，而部分成员国并未做出该规定。
是否有解约金？
在兼并案中解约金是常见的，通常由收购方和某些股东在协议中签订。
在收购案中解约金不常见，一般目标公司将承诺在收购不成功时向收购方支付解约金。在该情形下，鉴于要约收购在原则上须被告知目标公司股东，且可无须与目标公司本身的公司权益一致，因此前述条款的强制性可能会受到质疑。最终，任何解约金的金额不会妨碍对目标公司进行的任何潜在竞争收购。
目标公司可以同意不出售公司或其资产吗？
在提交公开竞标之前，如果目标公司的董事会认为收购方的收购符合目标公司的最佳利益，目标公司可与潜在收购方进行排他性的协商，或承诺不出售公司或其资产。收购方也可以将某些条件（如要求目标公司董事会或股东必须避免采取可能会对收购的成功产生负面影响的行动的条件）列入要约收购文件中。
目标公司可以同意发行股票或出售资产吗？
目标公司可能已在其章程中规定了抵制恶意收购的防御手段。但是，一旦启动要约收购，并且如果被动规则适用，则未经其股东的事先批准，目标公司必须避免采取可能对要约收购的成功产生负面影响的行动，例如发行新股票或出售其资产。
达成交易需要哪些承诺？
从目标公司的主要股东处得到其将出售股份的承诺，对交易的达成有很大助益。或者，收购方可以尝试，单独或与其一致行动人，收购目标公司超过30%的股份，进而触发发起强制要约收购的义务。否则，收购方可以在要约收购文件中添加要求最低持股数量的条款。
可以通过要约收购外的其他程序认购股份吗？
收购方可在要约收购外，自由认购目标公司的有价证券。但是，如果在收购期间，收购方以高于要约收购中定价的价格认购目标公司的有价证券的，根据条例规定，要约收购的价格必须相应增长。
可以在收购过程外购买其他金融衍生品吗？
购买潜在资产，即以有价证券作为提供对象的金融衍生品（例如期权、远期、期货、掉期交易等）时，条例同样适用。因此，若在收购期间，收购方以收购对象的有价证券作为标的资产作多头交易（即在收购方对呈积极趋势的基础资产感兴趣的情况下，收购金融衍生品），并且认购价格高于收购定价，那么要约定价必须相应增长。在这种情况下，价格被考虑为：基础证券的合约价，加上收购多头所支出或收到的金额的总和。
在要约前及要约过程中，关于股份和衍生品小额增持的披露条件是什么？
信息披露适用于收购拥有表决权的上市公司股份，并且当个人持有至少2%拥有表决权的上市公司股票（或若为中小型企业则须持有5%）时须即刻履行信息披露义务。在该等情形下，收购方必须在相关交易结束后的五个“交易日”内，就持股比例和收购的股份数量通知目标公司和监管委员会。
信息披露是强制性的，无论投票权是否已授予第三方或由第三方持有，也无论投票权是否已被暂停。
当收购方收购的拥有投票权的目标上市公司有价证券超过以下比例时，收购方应履行同等信息披露义务: 5%; 10%; 15%; 20%; 25%; 30%; 50%; 66.6%; 90% 和 95%。
当符合上述参股比例的收购方减少其在目标上市公司中的股份时，该收购方应履行类似的信息披露义务。
在“潜在”持股的情况下，即通过实物交易的衍生品参股的（例如可转换债券或认股权证），当达到或超过以下比例时，收购方须履行进一步的披露义务：5%; 10%; 15%; 20%; 25%; 30%; 50% 和 75%。
在多头交易的情况下，即通过，特别是通过现金结算的衍生品参股的，当到达或超过以下比例时，收购方须履行附加的披露义务：5%; 20%; 30% 和50%。
需要注意的是，以上针对潜在持股和多头交易的披露条件与拥有投票权的标的证券的数量有关；因此，如果标的证券的数量是可变的，则拟考虑的数量应取最大值。
潜在持股的披露条件不考虑收购方持有且已被披露的上市公司证券。
在不存在其他多头交易的前提下，若相关数值已被超过，并且该数值已作为实际股权或潜在股权向监管委员会登记备案，则该多头交易无须履行披露义务。
在要约收购的情况下，收购方向监管委员会登记备案的沟通记录，必须包括收购方的持股证明，以及收购方拥有授予其对目标公司证券进行多头交易的全部金融衍生品的证明。
此外，若签署股东协议的任何一方涉及多于2%的上市公司股票资本时，该方必须向监管委员会和发行公司披露此等情况。
限制及后果是什么？
任何未履行《统一财政法案》规定下的披露责任和义务的个人将被处以行政或刑事处分，并被剥夺投票权。
更加看重海外资本的意大利政府出台了《预算法2017》，向特别是将业务中心移至意大利的外国投资者提供更多机遇。我们来看一下相关重要信息。
固定税：希望将其税务居所转移至意大利的外国人。
首先，《预算法2017》向希望将税务居所转移至意大利的外国人提供了年度额为10万欧元的固定税（即无论其在意大利境外盈利规模，每年只向意大利政府缴纳10万欧元固定税）。
固定税的众多益处：
- 不论意大利境外的盈利规模；
- 可延伸至家庭成员：每个家庭成员可缴纳2.5万欧元的替代固定税；
- 可享受15年的固定税优惠。
今年3月，意大利税务局亦做出通知：已出台详细的适用规则和条款。
所以，固定税的适用规则必须依照税务局颁布的规则和程序进行。
只要符合条件的外国人在申报的纳税年度内已将纳税居所转移至意大利或马上将转移至意大利，则可在提交纳税申报的同时申请缴纳该固定税。
或者，也可以通过邮局或挂号邮箱，提前向意大利税务局提交申请。申请包括：
- 个人信息数据、税号（若已申请）、申请人的居住地址（若已驻留）；
- 在该申请生效日期前十个纳税年度中至少九个纳税年度没有住在意大利；
- 该申请生效前最后一个税务居所的所在国家；
- 申请人有盈利，但决定不包括在固定税收中的国家名单。
纳税人还需填写一份清单，以及提交后续的相应文件，以证明其符合申请条件。
在任何情况下，即使意大利税务局还未给出答复，该申请都必须在提交纳税申报的最后期限前提交。
投资者签证
除了固定税，预算法还为申请滞留3个月以上的外国投资人提出了“投资者签证”，该签证不设年度人数上限，并且每年都可以颁发。申请人须符合以下要求：
- 至少购买200万欧元政府债券并至少持有两年；
- 在注册地址为意大利、并在意大利运营的公司股本的权益工具中投资至少100万欧元，并维持至少两年，或向在特别登记处注册的创新型初创公司投资至少50万欧元；
- 用于文化、教育、移民管理、科学研究、文化遗产和景观修复领域的至少100万欧元的公益慈善捐款。
该签证申请人必须：
- 证明申请人有能力执行上述投资或捐赠；
- 以书面形式郑重承诺，将在进入意大利之后的三个月之内执行上述投资或捐赠；
- 证明申请人有足够的资源维持上述投资或捐赠。
对于是否符合上述要求，以获得相关外交或领事机构颁发的“投资者签证”，必须经过一系列严格的程序和步骤进行核实。
通过“投资者签证”获得的为期两年的居留卡，会被标明“投资者居留”，在没有履行投资承诺的情况下会被撤销。若两年期满，在核实其承诺的投资仍在进行中之后，会另外颁发为期三年的居留。
巴西 
乌克兰 
写信给 Simone
国际比较法律指南 – 交易保护
18 4 月 2017
-
意大利
- 并购
- 机构
The Italian legislator has enacted law 19.10.2017 n. 155 “Law. n. 155” or “the Reform”; through the said piece of legislation, the Italian government is entitled to adopt a series of legislative decrees (the decrees should be enacted very soon) aimed, on the one hand, at reforming substantially the Royal Decree n. 267/1942 “Bankruptcy Law”, on the other side, at amending accordingly the so called procedure of “over-indebtedness”.
It is interesting to note that art.1 of the Law n. 155 mandates that the Italian legislator, while adopting the said decrees, takes into account the EU regulation 2015/848, EU Commission recommendation n. 2014/135/EU and, most importantly, the UNCITRAL principles and guidelines.
Art. 2 sets forth some fundamental principles that as well must be followed by the Italian legislator.
First of all, the term “bankruptcy” i.e. Fallimento shall be replaced by the notion of judicial liquidation, in this respect, the criminal rules regarding bankruptcy shall be amended consequently. The so called ex officio (i.e. on Court’s initiative) bankruptcy declaration as provided by article 3 of Legislative decree n. 270/1999 (the law governing the so-called extraordinary administration) shall be repealed. The notion of state of crisis (a relative new notion) shall be properly defined as probable insolvency in the future. The definition shall be shaped taking into account the scientific development in the field of the business and administration science. Nonetheless, the definition of insolvency encompassed at art. 5 of Bankruptcy law shall remain the same.
Art. 2 further dictates that in order to ascertain the debtor’s state of crisis or insolvency a unique model procedure shall be adopted pursuant to article 15 of the Bankruptcy Law. The procedure shall be characterized by speediness, even in the ensuing phase of opposition. Legal standing in order to file a petition for bankruptcy shall be bestowed upon the supervising bodies of the business entity and upon the public prosecutor. The latter shall have the right to file a petition whenever he is aware of a state of crisis affecting the business entity.
The proceedings aimed at ascertaining the state of crisis and or insolvency shall concern every category of debtor. Therefore legal entities and individuals alike shall be subject to the procedure that shall regards: commercial business entities, agribusinesses, artisans, entrepreneurs, consumers, professionals, collective entities with the exception of public entities.
Moreover, the Reform shall adopt the notion of center of main interests (“COMI”) as developed within the framework of EU law and case law.
Preeminence and priority shall be given to the restructuring proceedings whereby the ongoing concern of the business is safeguarded in view of the creditors’ satisfaction. In this latter case, the convenience of the rescue plan needs to be properly illustrated. Liquidation, by contrast, is reserved to those cases where no viable alternative is possible. Abuses in any event should be prevented.
Art. 2 also specifies that the Italian Legislator has to coordinate the new rules with the provisions governing the automated process and those regarding the service process to the certified electronic e-mail couriers which shall be applicable to professionals as well.
One of the main goals of the Reform is to reduce the time and the costs associated to the activities to be performed in the proceedings. In particular, the fees of the professionals involved in the proceedings should be kept under control in order to increment the amount of money to be distributed in favor of the creditors.
Another objective of the Reform is to reframe those provisos whose interpretation has generated a contrast amongst the professionals, the scholars and the courts, in order to favor a construction of the rules consistent with the principles and the purposes established by the Reform.
Likewise, for sake of uniformity and consistency, the Reform backs a process of high-level specialization amongst Courts and professionals involved in the procedures. In order to achieve those goals the Reform moves into different directions.
In this respect, the Courts specialized in enterprise matters shall have jurisdiction over the proceedings and all the deriving litigations regarding enterprises subject to the Extraordinary Administration and large group of companies. On the other hand, the competence for the proceedings regarding the consumers, professionals and minor entrepreneurs shall remain unaltered while for the other procedures shall be competent those Courts that shall meet certain requirements in terms of: (i) the number of professional judges involved in the bankruptcy field; (ii) the number of proceedings that have been dealt with in the last five years; (iii) the number of proceedings that have been completed in the last five years; (iv) the average duration of the proceedings during the last five years; (v) the ratio between the requirements above mentioned and the national average; (vi) the number of business entities registered within the competent records together (vii) with the number of the resident population within the relevant territory of the Court.
Moreover, a list of professionals having the requisites of competence, independence and experience o be appointed as administrator, receivers or commissioners shall be kept by the Ministry of Justice.
Last but not least, the insolvency proceedings shall be harmonized with The European Social Charter for the protection of the employment.
Convertible notes, SAFE Agreements, participative financial instruments: the growing interest in start-up investing has led to a progressive differentiation both in investment strategies and, as a consequence, in legal/contractual instruments so to best suit the investors’ needs.
The introduction of these tools, specific to foreign ecosystems such as the Silicon Valley, and the difficulties in sourcing sufficient capitals to back the development of start-up companies, in particular with regard to the early/seed stage, has encouraged several players to opt for instruments alternative to equity investment, either developed “nationally” or under common law systems.
This mind-set has many positive side effects since it opened up the capital raising landscape that now includes venture capital funds, business angels networks, family offices and even club deals composed of small investors willing to buy into start-ups (mostly over the incubation/acceleration stage) with an injection of capital for a relatively small amount of shares.
In Italy, this trend towards non-equity or demi-equity instruments had two major results: it contributed to dust off legal instruments first introduced by the latest comprehensive reform of the Italian company law in 2004 (e.g. participative financial instruments – in Italian: Strumenti Finanziari di Partecipazione or SFP – art. 2346, par. 6 of the Italian Civil Code); and it fostered the creation of new contractual models plainly inspired by well-known instruments used in the Silicon Valley. That is the case of Convertible Notes and SAFE Agreements (Simple Agreement for Future Equity).
These instruments, together with the SFPs, have a trait in common: they all require a cash investment which is meant to be converted to equity at a specific milestone or on a pre-set date. On the other hand, none of them entails the possibility for an investor to hold a participation as a shareholder (at least not straightaway). Investors become stakeholders instead and they may hold as many administrative/patrimonial rights as they manage to negotiate with the company or with the founders themselves as well as depending on the specific contractual instrument they selected. It is important to point out that profits distribution rights are not included among those subject to negotiation since innovative start-ups (namely 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.) are prevented from distributing profits for the first five years according the pertaining Italian regulation (see art. 25, par. 2 of the D.L. 179/2012).
Convertible Note and SFP
Starting off with convertible notes: these instruments are extremely flexible and mainly used by club deals and family offices. They are structured as a hybrid between convertible obligations and traditional loans. Investors in facts lend money to a start-up on a specific interest rate and according to a contract where the parties have previously set out terms and conditions that would preside over their relationship. The investment is classified as a liability of the company to third parties and, more specifically, as a long term liability.
The parties set two different dates, one for the conversion of the credit to equity and another one for the possible payback (in case the conversion has not been exercised). Sometimes the parties decide to leave the payback aside and set directly the date of the conversion to equity thus transforming the instrument from a demi-loan to an option on a prospective capital increase, where the money invested in the company would be considered as the price of the option; or even an obligation that can be converted to shares, an hypothesis admitted by eminent scholars not only for corporations, but also for limited liability companies.
The conversion date is usually set before the reimbursements, for the latter is meant as the last resort in the event the capital increase has not been approved by the company and provided that the parties had previously agreed upon such possibility. Furthermore, the reimbursement might be considered as a consequence of certain events, in particular when there is a payback request for cause or when a party violates any of the representations and warranties set out in the contract. In order to avoid unpleasant surprises, it is “customary” to provide for a future capital increase specifically dedicated to the investor – as well as an obligation for the investor to convert his loan – directly in the contract. The parties are free to determine whether the conversion should take place on a certain date or subject to the company meeting specific milestones such as: turnover goals, the achievement of specific results both economically and with reference to the development of its tangible/intangible technological assets (for instance, the development of software or the patenting of an invention). The actual conversion may take place at once or in instalments through a resolution of the shareholders to schedule the capital increase in two or more tranches. The convertible note must provide for a price per share for the conversion based on the so-called pre-money valuation; it is quite usual to set also a conversion discount, that is a price per share lower than the per share price paid by other investors in that round.
SAFE Agreement
The SAFE Agreement – developed and used by the world-renowned California-based incubator “Y Combinator” – is neither a debt instrument, unlike convertible notes, nor an equity one since it does not give its holder the right to profit sharing or the right to vote as a shareholder. It is rather a financial instrument that incorporates a prospective right to buy out preferred shares.
Although SAFE Agreements do not have an Italian counterpart, SFPs may look alike when they are “designed” as semi-equity participative instrument (without payback) and used to collect capitals to be allocated in a specific equity reserve, which should be used only to cover the company’s operating losses and be considered otherwise unavailable. However, the extent of this unavailability is still a matter of debate among scholars and the possibility for the parties to a SFP agreement to determine that the reserve at issue might only be used upon depletion of the others (legal reserve fund included) is not undisputed as well. In one of the latest ruling on the matter, the judge has indeed opted for the availability of the reserve created upon issuance of the SFPs on account of its statutory nature, stating that it can therefore be depleted before legal reserve fund and equity (Court of Naples, 25/2/2016). This is basically the main reason why SAFE agreements cannot be implemented tout court in Italy.
In any case, the Italian Civil Code allows the possibility to design the SFPs so as to meet specific requirements since they are essentially “empty boxes” that can be filled by the parties based on the needs of either the issuing start-up company and/or the investors willing to fund it. In fact, the law only sets two guidelines: i) it excludes that the SFP could grant its holder the right to vote as a shareholder; ii) it establishes that these instruments can be endowed with patrimonial or even administrative rights. The possibility for a company to issue SFPs must be specified in the articles of association/bylaws, which refers to a future extraordinary meeting of the shareholders for the adoption of the pertaining regulation, which will also set out the functioning rules of the special assembly dedicated to the holders of SFPs.
Turning to the SAFE Agreement, the American model sets a conversion price that cannot exceed a certain cap, according to which the company assigns shares on a capital increase (i.e. SAFE preferred) with privileged rights and with restrictions closely similar to those typical of standard “preferred shares”. Furthermore, it also sets a discounted conversation price which, in the US experience, is in the range of 15-20%, while there no provision as to a future deadline for paying the investment back.
Nothing prohibits to adapt the regulation of the SFPs to the best practice resulted from the implementation of the SAFE Agreement in the US. That is the case of the “acceleration” clauses that allow the investor to convert its investment before the original date set out in the agreement in case of equity-financing/liquidity events, namely the acquisition of the start-up or a capital increase that brings new investors in. This type of clauses is also often used in convertible notes. Some clauses, on the contrary, cannot be transferred into a SFP. That is the case of the clauses that regard the payback in relation to dissolution events such as: (i) the voluntary suspension of the business activity of the company; (ii) the transfer of the company’s assets to benefit the creditors or (iii) the company’s winding-up process both voluntary and not. According to Italian law, the winding-up due to a total loss of equity implies the possibility to use the reserve destined to SFPs with the consequent loss of the money invested by the SFP holders. Hence the common practice – still debated among scholars – that sees the possibility to use the reserves created upon issuance of the SFPs subordinated to the complete depletion of the other reserves, legal reserve fund included.
Eventually, these practices have taken hold over the last few years since they are meant to provide the investors with more and more flexibility when dealing with financial/investment instruments as those described above. They represent in fact an opportunity for both start-ups, that can obtain capital on the short period, and investors, who can grade their entrepreneurial risk allocating their investment as a debt or not – depending on the chosen instruments – with a view to a conversion to equity that will eventually depend on several factors, not least the company’s business metrics and economical standing.
In conclusion, the dynamism of this sector and the recent intervention of the Italian legislator show that there is plenty of room for growth in the Italian start-up ecosystem.
The author of this post is Milena Prisco.
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:
- Clearly establish the cases in which it is possible to convict a party to pay punitive damages; and
- The predictability of it; and
- 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.
有限责任公司——在意大利中指：“Società a Responsabilità Limitata”或“S.R.L”——可能是最受欢迎的意大利公司的形式，原因如下：
- a) 公司资本数额不是强制性的；
- b) 顾名思义，配额持有者的责任仅限于配额认购资本；
- c) 其为“低成本”和易处理的公司。
请注意一个有限责任公司是不能发行股票的。事实上，参与到资本的是以“无形的”配额作为代表。此为一个有限责任公司的成员被称为“配额持有者”的原因。
在其他国家类似的公司为：在美国被称为L.L.C.；在英国被称为L.T.C；在德国被称为G.m.b.H.；在法国被称为S.a.r.l.；在西班牙被称为S.L.
信息说明
- 公司名称 – Società a responsabilità limitata – S.R.L. (有限责任公司)
- 最低注册资本 – 10000欧元（只有2500欧元，必须在公司支付）, 当资本低于10000欧元时，最低公司资本可低至1欧元并适用特殊的规则和限制
- 配额持有人最低数量 – 一个
- 配额持有人最多数量 – 没有限制
- 配额持有人的国籍 – 没有限制（在一些罕见的例外情况下，必须在具体问题具体分析的基础上核查）
- 主管的国籍 – 没有限制（在一些罕见的例外情况下，必须在具体问题具体分析的基础上核查）
- 有限责任 -是
- 审计 – 不经常需要
成立一个有限责任公司（最低公司资本有10000欧元），需要下列信息与文件。
a) 新公司的名称
b) 注册办事处
一个有限责任公司必须在意大利拥有一个注册办事处（一些法律或者会计事务所提供这样一种“虚拟办事处”）
c) 公司认购资本额和实缴资本额
成立一个有限责任公司，首先配额持有人的银行账户中应持有相当于公司认购资本金的25%的金额。
如果董事要求，未付资本金应在30天内支付。
公司资本金的支付可由以下替代：
- 一份保险单或者银行担保（有一定要求）;
- 实物出资。然而，在这种情况下，法律规定需独立的专家评估和其他手续。
d) 配额持有人的姓名和详细资料
请注意在单独配额持有人的情况下适用的特殊规则和限制。
比如，公司资本应当全部认购，公司的所有文件和记录都应指出公司资本属于唯一配额持有者。否则，唯一配额持有人将与公司承担连带债务责任。
e) 首席董事的姓名和个人信息
首席单独董事或首席董事在公司章程中被任命。
单独董事或者董事们也可不是意大利人但他们应拥有一个意大利财政标识号(“codice fiscal”),其可从任何地方税务局(“Agenzia delle Entrate”)获得。
f) 首席法定审计员的姓名和个人信息，根据意大利法律必要时需提供
g) 年度财政结束日期
h) 公司的期限
下列公司章程和细则应以公证书形式订立：
a) 一份非常标准的包括公司章程的合同，包括了法律上规定的建立一个有限责任公司的所需的所有信息。
b) 公司细则包含了公司管理规则。
公司细则可以通过配额所有人会议的决议来进行修改。
为免配额持有人是一家公司，需要一些额外的文件（例如，由股东会议通过的决议）被翻译成意大利语（被认证的翻译），公证以及认证或者合法化，视情况而定。
公司成立后，应在20日内在意大利公司登记处提交公司章程和细则的副本。在此之前，任何代表公司行事的人都将承担个人责任。
此简介只包含了有关于有限责任公司的基本信息。如果您有任何问题，请随时与我联系。
当银行控股权或投票权达到至少10%或其他相关比例（20%、30%或50%）时，银行参股可被描述为“合格控股”。另外，获得（多数）管理委员会成员的任命权利，或对银行管理产生重大影响的手段，也都属于“合格控股”的范畴。
作为欧洲银行监事，欧洲中央银行（以下简称“欧洲央行”）负责批准对所有成员国银行合格控股的拟议收购。
为何收购合格控股需要获得提前批准？
审批程序旨在确保只有通过审核的合格股东可进入银行系统，以防止任何破坏银行系统运作的行为。
评估尤其旨在确保拟收购方拥有良好的信誉、具有必要的财务稳健性，并确保目标银行必须一直在其要求范围内，同时保证所使用的资金并不来源于犯罪活动。
谁可以获得合格控股？
通常来讲，所有符合评估标准的自然人或法人都可获得银行的合格控股。
评估标准有哪些？
评估标准统一按照欧洲标准。CRD IV列出了五点针对拟议收购的评估要求：
拟议收购方的声誉
拟议收购方是否诚实守信，比如，无犯罪记录或法庭诉讼？
另一方面则是收购方的专业能力，即他们在金融行业的管理、投资成绩。
拟议的新管理人员
的信誉和经验
收购方是否打算对银行的管理机构进行变更？
如果是，则必须对新董事会成员做出适当的评估。
收购方财务稳健
拟议收购方能否为该拟议收购提供资金，并且在可预见的未来保持良好的财务状态？
以确认谁将负责为目标银行的资本附加提供资金。
对银行的影响
银行是否依旧必须遵守审慎要求？
例如，银行不应该被置于压力之下，因为部分收购资金是通过债务融资。
另外，收购方的结构也不应过于复杂，否则会妨碍监管机构有效监督银行。
涉及洗钱或
恐怖主义融资的风险
是否可以证实所涉及资金与犯罪活动或恐怖主义无关？
审查还会评估该收购是否可能涉及或增加潜在的洗钱或恐怖主义融资的风险。
如何作出决定？
拟议收购方向目标银行的国家银行监管机构发出其希望获得合格控股的意向的通知。国家监管机构进行初步评估之后向欧洲央行提供一份提案草案。欧洲央行与国家监管机构合作，做出自己的评估。并将结果通知拟议收购方及参与评估的国家监管机构。
评估不应超过60个工作日。若需要其他信息，在某些情况下评估期限可延长20至30个工作日。
如果在同一时间，两个或以上收购方希望收购同一家银行会如何？
若欧洲央行同时收到多个合格控股意向通知，则必须平等对待。欧洲央行无权就倾向于哪个拟议收购方收购目标银行作出决定。欧洲央行的任务是确保所有拟议购方符合上述五个标准。若多个拟议收购方符合上述标准，那么关于谁将收购目标银行的最终决定将由银行所有者做出。
申请期间，欧洲央行可以提出其他要求吗？
是的，额外要求或是在各国监管当局的提议下或是欧洲央行自己认为有必要提出。然而，对拟议收购方提出的所有要求都必须与上述五条标准有关。若提出的要求会对拟议收购方产生不利影响，则须举行听证会，使拟议收购方有机会做出反应。
若申请人收到不乐观结果怎么办？
若拟议收购被拒绝或拟议收购方认为该收购决定并不乐观，拟议收购方可就该决定向欧洲央行行政审议委员会提出异议。若该程序结果不令人满意，则拟议收购方也可向欧盟法院提出上诉。
若两家银行合并将会如何？会引发合格控股评估吗？
是的，若合并导致一家银行在另一家银行持有10%以上，或CRD IV中规定的其他相关比例（20%、30% 或50%）股份或投票权，则会引发合格控股评估。但是，若合并不意味着收购合格控股权，则适用制度取决于该国家法律。部分欧盟成员国规定必须在合并前批准，而部分成员国并未做出该规定。
是否有解约金？
在兼并案中解约金是常见的，通常由收购方和某些股东在协议中签订。
在收购案中解约金不常见，一般目标公司将承诺在收购不成功时向收购方支付解约金。在该情形下，鉴于要约收购在原则上须被告知目标公司股东，且可无须与目标公司本身的公司权益一致，因此前述条款的强制性可能会受到质疑。最终，任何解约金的金额不会妨碍对目标公司进行的任何潜在竞争收购。
目标公司可以同意不出售公司或其资产吗？
在提交公开竞标之前，如果目标公司的董事会认为收购方的收购符合目标公司的最佳利益，目标公司可与潜在收购方进行排他性的协商，或承诺不出售公司或其资产。收购方也可以将某些条件（如要求目标公司董事会或股东必须避免采取可能会对收购的成功产生负面影响的行动的条件）列入要约收购文件中。
目标公司可以同意发行股票或出售资产吗？
目标公司可能已在其章程中规定了抵制恶意收购的防御手段。但是，一旦启动要约收购，并且如果被动规则适用，则未经其股东的事先批准，目标公司必须避免采取可能对要约收购的成功产生负面影响的行动，例如发行新股票或出售其资产。
达成交易需要哪些承诺？
从目标公司的主要股东处得到其将出售股份的承诺，对交易的达成有很大助益。或者，收购方可以尝试，单独或与其一致行动人，收购目标公司超过30%的股份，进而触发发起强制要约收购的义务。否则，收购方可以在要约收购文件中添加要求最低持股数量的条款。
可以通过要约收购外的其他程序认购股份吗？
收购方可在要约收购外，自由认购目标公司的有价证券。但是，如果在收购期间，收购方以高于要约收购中定价的价格认购目标公司的有价证券的，根据条例规定，要约收购的价格必须相应增长。
可以在收购过程外购买其他金融衍生品吗？
购买潜在资产，即以有价证券作为提供对象的金融衍生品（例如期权、远期、期货、掉期交易等）时，条例同样适用。因此，若在收购期间，收购方以收购对象的有价证券作为标的资产作多头交易（即在收购方对呈积极趋势的基础资产感兴趣的情况下，收购金融衍生品），并且认购价格高于收购定价，那么要约定价必须相应增长。在这种情况下，价格被考虑为：基础证券的合约价，加上收购多头所支出或收到的金额的总和。
在要约前及要约过程中，关于股份和衍生品小额增持的披露条件是什么？
信息披露适用于收购拥有表决权的上市公司股份，并且当个人持有至少2%拥有表决权的上市公司股票（或若为中小型企业则须持有5%）时须即刻履行信息披露义务。在该等情形下，收购方必须在相关交易结束后的五个“交易日”内，就持股比例和收购的股份数量通知目标公司和监管委员会。
信息披露是强制性的，无论投票权是否已授予第三方或由第三方持有，也无论投票权是否已被暂停。
当收购方收购的拥有投票权的目标上市公司有价证券超过以下比例时，收购方应履行同等信息披露义务: 5%; 10%; 15%; 20%; 25%; 30%; 50%; 66.6%; 90% 和 95%。
当符合上述参股比例的收购方减少其在目标上市公司中的股份时，该收购方应履行类似的信息披露义务。
在“潜在”持股的情况下，即通过实物交易的衍生品参股的（例如可转换债券或认股权证），当达到或超过以下比例时，收购方须履行进一步的披露义务：5%; 10%; 15%; 20%; 25%; 30%; 50% 和 75%。
在多头交易的情况下，即通过，特别是通过现金结算的衍生品参股的，当到达或超过以下比例时，收购方须履行附加的披露义务：5%; 20%; 30% 和50%。
需要注意的是，以上针对潜在持股和多头交易的披露条件与拥有投票权的标的证券的数量有关；因此，如果标的证券的数量是可变的，则拟考虑的数量应取最大值。
潜在持股的披露条件不考虑收购方持有且已被披露的上市公司证券。
在不存在其他多头交易的前提下，若相关数值已被超过，并且该数值已作为实际股权或潜在股权向监管委员会登记备案，则该多头交易无须履行披露义务。
在要约收购的情况下，收购方向监管委员会登记备案的沟通记录，必须包括收购方的持股证明，以及收购方拥有授予其对目标公司证券进行多头交易的全部金融衍生品的证明。
此外，若签署股东协议的任何一方涉及多于2%的上市公司股票资本时，该方必须向监管委员会和发行公司披露此等情况。
限制及后果是什么？
任何未履行《统一财政法案》规定下的披露责任和义务的个人将被处以行政或刑事处分，并被剥夺投票权。
更加看重海外资本的意大利政府出台了《预算法2017》，向特别是将业务中心移至意大利的外国投资者提供更多机遇。我们来看一下相关重要信息。
固定税：希望将其税务居所转移至意大利的外国人。
首先，《预算法2017》向希望将税务居所转移至意大利的外国人提供了年度额为10万欧元的固定税（即无论其在意大利境外盈利规模，每年只向意大利政府缴纳10万欧元固定税）。
固定税的众多益处：
- 不论意大利境外的盈利规模；
- 可延伸至家庭成员：每个家庭成员可缴纳2.5万欧元的替代固定税；
- 可享受15年的固定税优惠。
今年3月，意大利税务局亦做出通知：已出台详细的适用规则和条款。
所以，固定税的适用规则必须依照税务局颁布的规则和程序进行。
只要符合条件的外国人在申报的纳税年度内已将纳税居所转移至意大利或马上将转移至意大利，则可在提交纳税申报的同时申请缴纳该固定税。
或者，也可以通过邮局或挂号邮箱，提前向意大利税务局提交申请。申请包括：
- 个人信息数据、税号（若已申请）、申请人的居住地址（若已驻留）；
- 在该申请生效日期前十个纳税年度中至少九个纳税年度没有住在意大利；
- 该申请生效前最后一个税务居所的所在国家；
- 申请人有盈利，但决定不包括在固定税收中的国家名单。
纳税人还需填写一份清单，以及提交后续的相应文件，以证明其符合申请条件。
在任何情况下，即使意大利税务局还未给出答复，该申请都必须在提交纳税申报的最后期限前提交。
投资者签证
除了固定税，预算法还为申请滞留3个月以上的外国投资人提出了“投资者签证”，该签证不设年度人数上限，并且每年都可以颁发。申请人须符合以下要求：
- 至少购买200万欧元政府债券并至少持有两年；
- 在注册地址为意大利、并在意大利运营的公司股本的权益工具中投资至少100万欧元，并维持至少两年，或向在特别登记处注册的创新型初创公司投资至少50万欧元；
- 用于文化、教育、移民管理、科学研究、文化遗产和景观修复领域的至少100万欧元的公益慈善捐款。
该签证申请人必须：
- 证明申请人有能力执行上述投资或捐赠；
- 以书面形式郑重承诺，将在进入意大利之后的三个月之内执行上述投资或捐赠；
- 证明申请人有足够的资源维持上述投资或捐赠。
对于是否符合上述要求，以获得相关外交或领事机构颁发的“投资者签证”，必须经过一系列严格的程序和步骤进行核实。
通过“投资者签证”获得的为期两年的居留卡，会被标明“投资者居留”，在没有履行投资承诺的情况下会被撤销。若两年期满，在核实其承诺的投资仍在进行中之后，会另外颁发为期三年的居留。
