corporate law

DECISIONAL DEADLOCK IN CORPORATIONS

DECISIONAL DEADLOCK IN CORPORATIONS

What is a decision deadlock?

Decisional deadlock occurs when the governing bodies of a company fail to make decisions due to lack of necessary majorities. This can occur due to disagreement among shareholders or directors, or due to their inertia in corporate activities. Conflicts can arise for various reasons, such as divergent visions or different economic interests. Such a scenario is even more possible and evident in the presence of equal partners (50%-50%). Stalemate situations ultimately result in the unfeasibility of the objectives of the business activity.

What are the possible solutions

  • The best way to avoid deadlock situations is to anticipate them through the adoption of some preventive measures. The first remedy is the introduction of deadlock clauses in the statute or in shareholders' agreements. The latter aim to stabilize ownership structures or govern the company. Deadlock clauses come in various forms, such as those that provide for mechanisms of consultation and preventive conciliation, up to the casting vote, which allows a shareholder to have the decisive vote in the event of a deadlock, often not easily predictable, as it implies the subordinate position of one or more shareholders towards others. It is more complicated to foresee that the deadlock decision is delegated to third parties outside the company. Sometimes the best solution has been found in granting one or more shareholders a put option, i.e., the right to sell their shares at a predetermined (or determinable) price, or a call option whereby one or more shareholders have the right to purchase the shares of others. There is also the so-called Russian roulette clause, which envisages that in the event of a deadlock, one shareholder may require the other to choose between buying the offering shareholder's stake at the price proposed by him or selling his own stake to him at the same price. Another possible deadlock solution is related to the statutory discipline of the right of withdrawal, with the provision of additional withdrawal scenarios, in addition to those provided by law, taking into account possible conflicts among shareholders.

A practical example of employing the Russian roulette clause

* In the last few days, the press has reported on a corporate deadlock situation involving a well-known Italian singer and his partner in the management of the company that publishes a popular podcast. One of the two equal partners offered to take over the shares of the other partner, thus activating the Russian roulette clause. The partner who received the offer, by refusing to sell his shares, found himself in a position to buy the shares of the bidder who, in turn, refused to sell them. The matter resulted in precautionary proceedings. This demonstrates that the Russian roulette clause is a rather complex mechanism to manage, both in the preventive phase and, in some cases, in the enforcement phase.

Conclusions

  • In the lifetime of a company, it is more frequent than people think to be facing deadlock situations. In such cases, the activity may have negative implications both in terms of results and internal relations. Therefore, before starting an activity in company form, it would be worthwhile investing time in the design and planning phase of the best possible set-up

Food retail

The performance of the Food Retail sector in 2021 is showing positive signs even though it is obviously still affected by the negative socio-economic reverberations of the Covid-19 pandemic. During 2020 the health emergency hit hard the whole catering sector which, due to the prolonged and intermittent lock down phases, experienced dramatic moments. In terms of legal assistance and consultancy to the Food Retail sector, 2020 was marked by prolonged negotiation activity aimed at finding a balance between the reasons of the landlords and the requests of the companies for redevelopment of the rent. The result of this activity has been, on average, positive, in terms of reaching balanced agreements on rent revisions, but overall the impact of the pandemic factor has been very severe in terms of a drop in turnover for the entire sector, which has also seen a succession of numerous business closures that have certainly affected mostly, but not only, those companies that had previous problems of capitalization and financial instability already in the pre-covid era. The operators in the sector have, moreover, noted a lack of effectiveness and proportionality of the economic support measures arranged by the Government. In 2021, especially in the second half of the year, despite the persistence of widespread uncertainty regarding short and medium-term economic scenarios, and in conjunction with the beginning of a recovery in companies' cash flows, although certainly not equal to pre-covid levels, encouraging signs were also seen regarding the resumption of development plans. Negotiations were thus more focused on negotiations for new openings, which saw a cautious revival of initiatives to acquire commercial premises and other retail locations. On the other hand, even the obvious and in some cases favorable opportunities offered by the market are often approached with a certain degree of caution, determined by the awareness that the period of emergency is far from over. As far as the target of the positioning is concerned, there is a clear predisposition to search for locations equipped with large outdoor dehors, due to the changed habits of customers who certainly prefer an offer with characteristics of greater outdoor livability. On the other hand, a possible obstacle to development is the chronic lack of qualified personnel.

Shareholders' loans: related risks and instructions for use

Some of the most important legal profiles and practical aspects linked to the loans made by shareholders in favor of the companies they own, in the light of the widespread use of this instrument, have often led to critical issues, that have not been adequately assessed ex ante, as well as the emergence of controversial topics. This is even though the legislator and the case law have tried, over the years, to provide a partial regulation and an interpretation of the matter that is as much as possible straightforward and in line with practice.

Article 2467 of the Italian Civil Code - which provides the express subordination of these credits deriving from financing with respect to the repayment by the company of the credits claimed for different reasons by other creditors - addresses, in fact, the problem of their qualification with the awareness that, even though the fact that in many cases they appear, in the form and intentions of the lending shareholder, as loan capital disbursements (therefore subject to a theoretical obligation of restitution by the borrower), in substance, however, they must be more correctly framed as contributions of risk capital because they have been made in moments of the company life when it would have been reasonable to expect the contribution of risk capital.

However, the same rule has not been sufficiently precise in identifying in which precise moment the existence of the conditions of "excessive imbalance of indebtedness with respect to the shareholders' equity" or of "financial situation of the company in which a contribution would have been reasonable" must occur for the functionality of the subordination mechanism, and the case law has therefore intervened in this grey zone, clarifying, in brief, that "the company is obliged to refuse the shareholder the reimbursement of the loan, in the presence of the indicated situation, where existing at the time of the financing arrangement of the loan and at the time of the request for reimbursement" as well as "until the Court decision, since it is condition of non-performing of the loan” (in this sense Court of Cassation 12944/2019 and, inter alia, Court of Milan July 9, 2021, Court of Milan October 21, 2020, Court of Rome February 6, 2017 and Court of Milan June 13, 2016).

The aforementioned rule, the case lax interpretations provided over time and the particular nature of the these loans raise therefore concrete critical issues to be taken into due consideration when assessing whether or not carrying out the financing and which are the costs and benefits for the granting shareholder.

The issue and the related risks must therefore be carefully considered by the shareholder, understanding that, in order to avoid or, at least, mitigate the risk of subordination with respect to the other company creditors, it is not only relevant the time at which the loan was granted, but also every possible subsequent change in the company's equity and financial situation in relation to the punctual or untimely repayment of the loan. Up to the possible total loss of the conferred capital in the event that the beneficiary company should not recover from the phase of supervening financial difficulty.

A further issue to be considered is the need to agree with the beneficiary company the methods and terms of repayment of the loan provided through the signing of a detailed agreement.

From an operational point of view, when carrying out a loan in favor of an owned company, it is advisable to proceed with the necessary cautions, especially if the shareholder is not authorized, as director and legal representative of the beneficiary company, to independently arrange the repayment of the loan in his capacity.

Such cautions should consist of:

  • in the adequate prior understanding of the economic-legal assumptions for the application of subordination, briefly discussed here;

  • in the execution of specific loan agreements between the shareholder and the company where the possible interest rate applied (in the case of interest-bearing loan) and, above all, the terms, conditions, methods and timing of repayment of the loan by the lending shareholder are expressly provided for.

In other words, it is not sufficient to make a simple bank transfer in favor of the company (as very often happens in practice), even if with a detailed reason of the transfer indicated, as well as it is extremely risky not to agree on a specific repayment term. In fact, in case of failure to provide for such a term and in case of failure to reach an agreement with the beneficiary company, the lending shareholder, in the event of a dispute, will have to take proceedings against the company in order to request the judicial establishment of a term for the repayment of the loan pursuant to article 1817 of the Italian Civil Code (a rule that is often not adequately taken into consideration).

Prohibition of competition in the transfer of a company: silence can cost you dearly

Mattia Raffaelli – Of Counsel Sofia Mercedes Bovoli– Trainee

Mattia Raffaelli – Of Counsel

Sofia Mercedes Bovoli– Trainee

An important provision that must be taken into consideration when preparing for the transfer of a company, a company branch or, in any case, an operation similar/comparable to the same, is art. 2557 of the Civil Code concerning competition.

Art. 2557 of the Civil Code sanctions, for the specific protection of the purchaser of a company, the prohibition for the transferor, following the completion of the operation, to conduct competitive activities, for a maximum period of five years from the transfer. Therefore, as a natural and automatic effect of the transfer, whoever proceeds to the alienation of a company will have to refrain from starting a new business which, due to its object, location or other circumstances, is likely to divert the customers of the transferred company.

There are two issues that need to be highlighted: on the one hand, the automatic application of the prohibition and, on the other, the extensive force and analogical application of the same.

Analyzing by points:

(a) The automatic application of the prohibition: the prohibition of competition is placed by the legislator as a natural effect of the business transfer, underlying the social economic function of the transaction itself. Therefore, in the silence of the parties, this prohibition will unfold its effects independently of an explicit will in this sense. Consequently, unless otherwise provided for, the prohibition will automatically apply within the limits and under the conditions imposed by the legislator.

However, the parties are allowed to derogate from the non-competition clause either by weakening or strengthening it. First of all, with regard to its duration, it is possible to provide for a duration shorter than the 5 years provided for by the legislator, but never longer, in order to protect the private initiative of the assignor. In addition, the scope of application of the prohibition can be limited from the point of view of object or location and therefore the assignor can be prevented from exercising the activity in competition only in a delimited territory and for specific activities. On the contrary, in a specularly opposite manner, it is possible to envisage limits that extend the effectiveness of the regulatory provision, extending the object of the prohibition to further activities with respect to those already exercised through the transferred company. In any case, any "worsening" derogations imposed on the transferor cannot be such as to effectively prevent him from carrying out of any professional activity.

b) Extensive force and analogical application of the provision: The Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, reiterated the non-exceptional nature of the prohibition and has, therefore, acknowledged, on several occasions, the analogical application of article 2557 of the Civil Code. Consequently, it seems appropriate to identify the cases and the operations assimilated to the transfer of a company to which it is possible to extend this prohibition.

Doctrine and jurisprudence agree in considering possible the analogical application of the prohibition to all the hypotheses in which, in substance, operations similar and analogous to the transfer of a company or a branch of it are carried out. Jurisprudence has recognized the automatic application of the prohibition also in the case of the transfer of majority shareholdings in a company. Moreover, the violation of this prohibition would take place both in the event that the transferring shareholders set up a new company with the same corporate purpose as the one transferred and in the event that they take on the role of directors in a competing company. The need to protect the transferee is always the same, consider, for example, the possibility of diversion of clients deriving from the taking over of the management of a subject who, being known to the clientele, of which he knows the tendencies and habits, may have a considerable capacity to attract them. Therefore, in order to evaluate the possible analogical application of the provisions of art. 2557 Civil Code, also because of its automatic application, it is necessary to evaluate case by case the underlying will of the parties and the economic result they intend to pursue with a certain operation. In fact, not infrequently, the choice between transferring a company or a shareholding is mainly determined by reasons of fiscal opportunity or limitation of the transferee's responsibilities.

It should be pointed out that violation of the non-competition clause governed by art. 2557 of the Civil Code would entitle the transferee to request

a) termination due to breach of contract.

b) compensation for the damage suffered and incurred as a result of the violation (equal, for example, to the loss of earnings or the reduction in the value of the company due to the diversion of customers);

c) the inhibition, as a precautionary measure, of the illicit conduct pursuant to art. 700 c.p.c..

In conclusion, taking into account the automatic effect of the regulations analyzed here, when we are about to undertake operations that in fact realize a substitution of one subject for another in the running of the company and in the exercise of a given activity, it is necessary, in order to avoid incurring unpleasant surprises, to move accordingly, regulating the application and scope of the prohibition.

Prize operations: relations with Facebook and Instagram

Mattia Raffaelli – PartnerSofia Mercedes Bovoli– Trainee

Mattia Raffaelli – Partner

Sofia Mercedes Bovoli– Trainee

It is now increasingly common to come across operations and competitions on social networks, such as Facebook and Instagram, which provide for the awarding of prizes, discounts and refunds given to users in exchange for publishing a "post" or sharing a "story" on Instagram.

These phenomena, more and more growing, are in fact winning Marketing activities that have as a central idea to make the protagonists of the promotional activity the users themselves, inviting them to create content and to personally promote a certain product.

From a legal point of view, however, the applicable legislation is very strict and, unlike prize competitions, does not give discounts.

Our legal system regulates these phenomena in the Presidential Decree N. 430/2001 which includes most of the prize contests that we are used to see on social networks and distinguishes between:

  • prize competitions

  • options trading

The first ones consist in promotional initiatives through which prizes are awarded without any purchase condition, therefore the awarding of the prize will depend only on fate, on a computer system or on an algorithm. The latter, on the other hand, consist of a contest in which a prize is offered to all those who have purchased a product during the launching of the promotion.

There are only a few exceptions and derogations to the discipline, for example, competitions that have social purposes, those that provide for the production of literary, scientific or artistic works or in the case where the prize is represented by a discount or objects of minimal value are excluded from the application of the regulations.

It is also necessary to point out that, in order to organize a contest on the main Social Networks, such as Facebook and Instagram, although the association with them is no longer an essential requirement, it will be necessary to comply with the specific conditions provided for by the Social Network itself and, in particular, to explicitly exclude in the regulation of the promotion any association with the same, relieving it from any liability that may arise from the launching of the operation or of the contest.

Moreover, the Ministry of Economic Development, through the updated FAQ published on 13 February 2020, has clarified some particularly thorny points of the regulations.

In fact, it has been highlighted how it is possible to exclude the association with Social Networks and consequently dispense them from any liability, only in the case where equal opportunities for all participants are guaranteed. Therefore, the registration to the Social Network cannot constitute a limit to the participation to the promotional initiative, it will be necessary, therefore, to reserve the participation to the contest only to those who were already registered to the Social Network before the beginning of the promotion or to offer to the users the possibility to participate also through different and alternative modalities.

Another important and particularly limiting element is the location of the server for the acquisition of participation in the promotion, which must necessarily be located on Italian territory.

In conclusion, the organization of operations or competitions with prizes is far from being simple and immediate, but it is necessary to provide for the drafting of a detailed regulation, to communicate notice of the call of the competition 15 days before its beginning to the Ministry of Productive Activities, to pay the deposit equal to the value of the prizes as a whole and to adopt a privacy policy in compliance with the GDPR.

Consumer's Right to Reconsider the Purchase in Distance Selling Contracts and Seller's Safeguarding: an Asymmetrical Protection?

rosebox-BFdSCxmqvYc-unsplash (4).jpg

Stefano Bonacina – Associate

Art. 52 of the Legislative Decree No. 206/2005 (Consumer Code) governs the so called right of withdrawal from the contract or reconsideration in favor of the consumers, i.e. the natural persons acting for purposes unrelated to business or a professional activity.

This withdrawal - to which follows the restitution of the amount paid for the purchase of goods - can be exercised in distance and off-premises contracts and can be done without any penalty and without specifying the reason, but necessarily within the term of fourteen days starting, in contracts of sale of goods, from the date of material delivery to the consumer.

The ratio of the European origin discipline of the right of withdrawal is to protect the consumer who has carried out a purchase to distance (for example online) and has not been able to view the product before the conclusion of the contract. To use the words of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sent. no. 430/17 of January, 23 2019) "it is considered that the right of withdrawal compensates for the disadvantage that results for the consumer from a distance contract, granting him an appropriate period of reflection during which he has the opportunity to examine and test the goods purchased".

However, such right is not always and indistinctly guaranteed because art. 59 of the Consumer Code lists the cases valued by the law in which it is a priori excluded. Among the exclusions provided for by the rule is not however contemplated the different case in which the packaging and the packing of the product are materially opened and this omission has created in the course of the time a so-called interpretative grey zone not resulting clear if, in such case, it was still possible for the consumer to withdraw legitimately from the contract and to demand the restitution of the paid consideration.

After several contrasts and differing interpretations, the Court of Justice of the European Union has, however, intervened on the point by specifying that the withdrawal is allowed even after having used the object and opened the packaging (Court of Justice of the European Union, Sentence no. 681/17 of March, 27 2019). The Court has in fact held that the exercise of the right of withdrawal from the contract cannot be made conditional on the integrity of the product: apart from specific exceptions, even those who materially remove the entire packaging or the simple protective film must always be able to return the goods after use, provided that the aforementioned legal deadline of fourteen days is respected and the goods have not been otherwise damaged by the buyer.

In light of the exponential increase of the purchases online of the last years, the situation here discussed is verified by now in a growing number of cases, placing the sellers (that are not always platforms of sale in a dominant position on the market) in a complicated and problematic management of the sale process.

The product subject to return and deprived of its original packaging is in fact, in the majority of cases, not considered as new and therefore cannot be sold at the original conditions with consequent reduction of the price of the subsequent sale.

When this occurs, the exercise of a so-called right of the consumer turns symmetrically into an evident prejudice for the seller who finds himself, despite his will, having to suffer an unavoidable damage connected to the mere reconsideration of the purchase.

The latter, in order to eliminate or at least mitigate the negative effects of the right of reconsideration, could ultimately evaluate to put in place autonomously actions of "self-protection" of its contractual position (for example preparing, where feasible, a new packaging and putting on sale as new goods that in reality are not) with prejudice, ultimately, of the consumer that the EU legislator intended to protect at all costs.

The Judicial Determination of the Remuneration of Directors of Limited Liability Companies

jonny-mckenna-tVi5i7887ko-unsplash.jpg

The Italian legal system recognises the right of directors of limited liability companies to receive specific remuneration for the activities performed in fulfilment of their mandate. Exactly as any other professional activity, even such a role must be considered to be for valuable consideration, at least on a presumptive basis.

The director of a company, by accepting the office, acquires therefore the right to be remunerated for the activity carried out in the performance of the task entrusted and the amount of the remuneration may be determined, alternatively or cumulatively, in the Articles of association, in the deed of appointment or by an independent resolution of the shareholders' meeting (the determination of remuneration cannot be implied in the resolution approving the annual financial statements).

In the absence of such formal acts, the remuneration is not defined by the parties and any other different form of possible determination, such as an oral agreement between the director and the majority shareholder, is ineffective.

Therefore, if the Articles of association does not provide anything in this regard, the shareholders' meeting does not quantify such amount or if it determines it in an inadequate measure, the director can file a claim in Court in order to request a specific judicial determination, also by means of an equitable determination of the amount.

It is necessary to clarify that a minimum level remuneration does not exist and the directors may completely waive their fees or accept to be paid in a measure that is objectively inadequate to the activity performed. In the latter cases, the director must give his express consent, even if it can be deduced from tacit conduct that can be univocally interpreted as a waiving intention. Indeed mere inertia or silence are not considered to be sufficient.

As recently clarified by a decision of the Court of Milan, specialized business section (published on 22 June 2020), for the equitable determination of the remuneration due to a professional, the Court must take into account not only the nature of the mandate, but also the quantity and quality of the activities actually carried out by the director.

In particular, the Court must quantify the amount of the remuneration due to the director in proportion to the extent of the services performed by him and to the outcome actually achieved by the principal (i.e. the company), given that the determination of the remuneration can only be made on an equitable basis with a wide discretion of the Court.

In the light of the above, in the proceedings for the determination of the remuneration brought by a director of a limited liability company, it is necessary to indicate and prove the specific quality and quantity of the services actually performed. The mere allegation of the remuneration agreed in different business years or in favour of different directors in similar positions is not sufficient. The equitable determination of the remuneration due to the director must be based on the analysis of the data that can be obtained from the documents submitted. These documents must be jointly assessed in order to be able to determine the actual extension and relevance of the activity specifically performed by the director.

Agriculture and Limited Companies under Italian Law

andrea-cairone-lzM3pbQim70-unsplash.jpg

1)  Farming in the form of limited companies

Agricultural activity, which historically in Italy has mainly taken the form of sole proprietorships or family businesses, can also be exercised under other corporate forms. The latter, in fact, on the one hand allow the aggregate exercise of the enterprise and on the other, are able to provide greater protection of personal assets.

2)  Criticism: the right of agricultural pre-emption

Agricultural pre-emption is the right to be preferred to others for the purchase of agricultural land when the owner decides to sell it.

According to the provisions of Article 8 of Law 590/1965, the right of first refusal belongs first of all to the direct farmer (or a farm in which at least half of the partners are direct farmers) who has been renting, for at least two years, the land offered for sale. In addition, pursuant to Article 7 of Law 817/1971, where the land is not leased to a direct farmer (or a farm), the right of first refusal arises for direct farmers (or farms in which at least half of the members are direct farmers) who own neighboring land. On the other hand, agricultural partnerships in which less than half of the partners are direct farmers are excluded from the right of first refusal, irrespective of whether they are professional farmers, and joint stock companies are always excluded, even if they have direct farmers as partners.

The ratio for these rules was, in the past, the need to encourage the purchase of agricultural land by direct farmers. In fact, the legislator's aim was to improve the productive structures of agriculture. In particular, the tenant pre-emption promotes (or establishes) new ownership by bringing together in the same person the ownership of the agricultural undertaking and the ownership of the land on which it is exercised, thus favoring the continuation of the same; the neighbor pre-emption enlarges direct farming ownership by combining neighboring land, thus creating larger and more efficient agricultural undertakings from a technical and economic point of view.

The lack of agrarian pre-emption for limited companies will therefore be an element to be carefully assessed in the choice of the form of company to be adopted in the specific case.

 

3)  The requirements for a farm established as a limited company

As already mentioned, farms can certainly also be set up in the form of limited companies. In fact, our legal system provides for the possibility of S.r.l. (Limited liability company), S.r.l.s. (Simplified limited liability company) e S.p.a. (limited companies), may take on the status of “Farm” provided, however, that they meet the following three essential requirements:

a) exclusive exercise of farming activities and related activities;

b) compulsory indication of “Farm” status;

c) possession of certain professional qualifications.

 

A. Exclusive exercise of farming activities and related activities

As regards the first requirement, companies must have as their exclusive object the exercise of agriculture and related activities.

In this regard, Article 2135 of the Civil Code introduces a definition of these activities which, in brief, concern:

- the cultivation of the land;

- forestry;

- animal breeding;

- all other related activities.

The law literally specifies that 'Cultivation of land, forestry and livestock farming are activities aimed at the care and development of a biological cycle or a necessary stage of that cycle, of a plant or animal nature, using or capable of using land, woodland or fresh, brackish or sea water'.

With regard to related activities, these are defined as:

- activities aimed at handling, preserving, processing, marketing and adding value to products obtained mainly from the cultivation of land or forests or the rearing of animals;

- activities aimed at providing goods or services using mainly farm equipment or resources;

- other activities, e.g. management of agritourisms.

Connected activities, therefore, take place alongside the main activities and aim to make the agricultural undertaking multifunctional. In order to be considered connected, account is taken of both the objective element, i.e. the activity carried out, and the subjective element, i.e. that the activity must be carried out by the same entrepreneur as the main activity.

 

B.   Compulsory indication of “Farm” status

The first paragraph states that the name or company name of companies whose object is the exclusive pursuit of the activities referred to in Article 2135 of the Civil Code must include the words "Farm". It should be pointed out that this is obviously not a new type of company: the companies that can be set up are still those referred to in the Civil Code, which, in the case of the exclusive exercise of agricultural activities, must bear the indication "Farm" in the name or company name.

C.   Possession of professional qualifications

As to the third and last requirement, pursuant to Article 1 of Legislative Decree no. 99/2004, at least one director must be a professional farmer (or a direct farmer if he also meets the requirements for being a professional farmer). In view of the possibility that, in limited companies, the administration may also be entrusted to non-members, this could lead to the case of an agricultural company in which none of the partners is an agricultural entrepreneur or direct farmer. Even in the case of a single-member company, the presence of at least one director with the above-mentioned requisites allows the company to qualify as a farm and gain access to the related benefits.

It should also be noted that the qualification of professional agricultural entrepreneur (in Italian, I.A.P.) can be conferred by the director to only one company, in order to avoid the creation of fictitious administrative offices, with the sole purpose of obtaining the benefits due to farms.

 

4)  The procedure for setting up a farm in the form of a limited company

The farm can therefore be set up in the form of a limited company if the three above-mentioned requirements are met.

Particular attention must therefore be paid to the figure of the qualified director.

First of all, a "professional agricultural entrepreneur (I.A.P.) is a person who, possessing professional knowledge and skills within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, dedicates at least fifty per cent of his total working time, either directly or as a partner in a company, to the agricultural activities referred to in Article 2135 of the Civil Code and who derives at least fifty per cent of his total income from such activities".

Normally, if you are a direct farmer you also meet all the requirements to be considered a professional farmer, but this is not necessarily the case, because the legal requirements for these two professions operate on two different levels.

Below, without any claim to completeness, is the sequence of the most significant requirements for setting up a farm in the form of an ordinary and/or simplified limited liability company:

1)   Setting up of the farm in the form of an ordinary and/or simplified limited liability company;

2)   opening a VAT number;

3)   opening of a certified e-mail address;

4)   registration of the company in the ordinary section of the Companies' Register and in the REA (Economic and Administrative Register) of the province where the company's registered office is based;

5)   acquisition by the company of an established farm and/or setting up of a farm by the company, by means of renting the rustic fund and/or loaning it for use;

6)   submission of the application for “Inizio attività” at the Companies' Register of the province where the company's registered office is based, with simultaneous registration of the company in the “Special Farm Section”.

Finally, the most important task following the setting up of the company, the opening of the VAT number and the other tasks not included in the above list (such as the choice of the applicable VAT regime) will obviously consist in the acquisition or ex novo setting up of a farm.

 

The Unlawful Filing of an Application for an "Incomplete" Composition with Creditors and the Liability of Managers.

articolo 11_12.jpg

It is increasingly common for companies in a state of crisis to file incomplete applications for the composition with creditors (also known as "uncomplete" composition).

Italian Bankruptcy Law allows entrepreneurs in a state of crisis to file an appeal containing the request for a composition with creditors, while reserving the right to submit the exact proposal, 8containing the plan and the specific documentation required by the Bankruptcy Law) within a specific time limit set by the judge. Within this deadline, which by law is between 60 and 120 days and may be extended for a period not exceeding 60 days for justified reasons, the company may alternatively file a proposal for debt restructuring or a composition with creditors. If, however, the deadline expires the debtor loses the associated benefits and may be declared bankrupt.

The benefits associated with this procedure are known. In fact, it allows the debtor to immediately obtain the benefit of the protection of its assets, by impeding the enforcement or precautionary actions on the debtor's assets.

However, the purposes underlying the filing of an application for an “uncomplete” composition with creditors are not always truly genuine and are aimed at illegally postponing the moment of the company’s bankruptcy. This modus operandi, if it is verified, may however cause the liability of the company's management body.

A recent judgment of the Court of Milan, (published on 1st  June 2020), has examined the liability of the managers, clarifying that the conduct of the director who submits an application for composition with creditors in the presence of the assumption of the state of insolvency of the company cannot be considered in itself and automatically generating liability for damages, even if the proposal for composition is, in theory, declared inadmissible or admission is subsequently revoked (articles 162 and 173 of the Bankruptcy Act). However, the directors' liability in this sense can only be incurred when the application is to be considered abusive, i.e. solely aimed, with reasonable probability, at fraudulently postponing the company's bankruptcy to the detriment of the creditors.

The damage connected with this case may, for example, be derived from the costs "unnecessarily" incurred by the company following the filing of the application for composition with creditors, filed at a specific time when, since the conditions for access to composition with creditors did not exist, the directors would have had to apply for the bankruptcy of the managed company on their own.

A previous ruling of the Court of Milan, (published on 30 October 2019) had also clarified that the adoption of delaying tactics - including the filing of an “uncomplete” appeal for composition without the production of the plan - may entail a specific liability of the liquidator for the aggravation of the company’s  bankruptcy state. In such a case, the resulting damage could be derived from the otherwise avoidable increase in the company's debt situation.

It should be noted that the early designation of the Creditors’ Trustee in the bankruptcy procedure - recently introduced into the Bankruptcy Law - has helped to reduce the number of appeals filed by those companies which, by abusing the institution and taking advantage of the suspension of any executive actions, had the sole purpose of trying to postpone the declaration of bankruptcy and thus prevent creditors from satisfying their claims on the remaining assets.

Avoiding Notary Fees when Incorporating an Innovative Start Up.

On February 19, the Minister of Economic Development signed a decree, which introduces the possibility of certain types of companies without the aid of a Notary.  
The decree, which constitutes an important new element to encourage the creation of innovative start-ups, refers to those companies as defined by art 25 of Decree 179/2012, the so-called Growth 2.0 Decree.
This innovation shall mean that the articles of association and the deed of incorporation  may be written directly by members of the startup and the Company Registrar of Companies will authenticate the signatures and will proceed to a real time registration of the company.
The measure therefore allow for the establishment startup process is much more simple and convenient: the company may in fact be formed immediately eliminating the costs of preparing for notary public act.
According to Italian law innovative start-ups are limited liability companies, sometimes even in the form of cooperatives and non-listed companies, which:
-    Have carried out business activities for no longer that the last five years;
-    Are established in Italy or in a European Union Member State with a production office or a branch in Italy;
-    Sales do not exceed 5 million euros;
-    They do not distribute and have not distributed profits;
-    Develop, produce and market innovative products or services with high technological value.
Innovative start-ups must moreover possess the following additional requirements:
i)    Invest in research and development profits for at least 15 percent;
ii)    At least two-thirds of the workforce is made up of employees with research doctoral degree or who are doing a PhD at Italian or foreign university, or have a master's degree;
iii)    Are holders or licensees of at least one IP asset related to an industrial, biotechnological invention, to a topography of semiconductor product, a new plant variety or are holders of the rights to a computer program for the original, provided that such deprivation adhere directly to the corporate purpose and activity of enterprise.