EURO LIT INSIGHTS

New Whistleblowing Rules in Italy

by Fabio Cozzi, Francesco Bianchi, Stefano Mechelli and Massimiliano Moruzzi | Feb 12, 2024 | Legislative Update, Italy

On March 15, 2023, Legislative Decree No 24 of March 20, 2023, transposing EU Directive 2019/1937, was published in the Italian Official Journal. The new law entered into force on March 20, 2023, and must be implemented. The new rules came into effect on:

July 15, 2023, in the case of all public entities, and private entities with an average of 250 or more employees
December 17, 2023, in the case of private entities with an average of 50 or more employees.

The new rules include within the notion of whistleblower not only employees, but also self-employed workers, freelancers and consultants, volunteers and trainees, shareholders and persons with administrative, management, control and supervisory or representative functions, and former employees.

A whistleblower is protected against retaliation, even indirect retaliation including dismissal, suspension, downgrading or non-promotion, demotion, negative references, intimidation or harassment, reputational damage, etc. and benefits from supportive measures such as information, assistance and advice free of charge on how to report and on protection from retaliation.

The Decree extends the obligation to implement reporting channels, adopt procedures for making reports, and ensure safeguards applies to all private entities that:

in the last year (ending for the first

Representative Proceedings | A Low Bar to the “Same Interest” Requirement?

by Jack Thorne and Briana Walley | Feb 11, 2024 | Court Judgment, United Kingdom

In Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 9, the Court of Appeal handed down one of its first decisions concerning representative proceedings following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Lloyd v Google. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision at first instance and allowed a representative proceeding under CPR 19.8(2) to proceed, but also identified several issues that it noted will require careful case management in the future.

The underlying proceedings concern current and former clients of the two defendant firms, Marks & Clerk LLP (M&C), and its associated firm, Long Acre Renewals (LAC), alleging that those firms received secret commissions for referring clients of M&C to a third party. They allege that M&C and LAC are liable to account for the amount of those commissions. A special purpose vehicle, Commission Recovery Ltd (CRL), was incorporated for the purposes of bringing the proceedings and took an assignment of a claim from one of M&C’s clients, Bambach Europe. CRL is the representative claimant in the action.

Representative Actions under English Law

Under CPR 19.8, a Claimant can bring a claim on behalf of other persons where they have the “same interest” in

D&O Insurances and Acting Board Members have the Same Burden of Proof in Direct Proceedings with the Injured Company

by Thomas Hauss, Dr. Damian Hecker and Tobias Meyer | Feb 10, 2024 | Court Judgment, Germany

In a recent decision, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne dealt with the extremely topical issue of the distribution of the burden of proof in a direct lawsuit brought by a company against its D&O insurer.

The Decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne

In the case decided by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, a limited liability company (GmbH) insured its managing director with a D&O insurance policy. After an event occurred which was presumed by the GmbH to be covered by insurance (involving inadequate fire insurance taken out by the managing director), the company did not take action against its managing director itself but had the claim of the insured managing director against the D&O insurance assigned to it and instead made a claim against the insurance on the basis of the assigned right.

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne now had to deal with the question of whether the same burden of presentation and burden of proof applies to the suing GmbH and the defending D&O insurance, compared to the imagined case that the injured GmbH would have initially made in a claim against its managing director.

In the latter case, the burden of proof would

New Reform Makes Italy Even More Attractive for Arbitration

by Fabio Cozzi, Francesco Bianchi, Stefano Mechelli and Massimiliano Moruzzi | Feb 9, 2024 | Arbitration, Procedural Legal Update, Italy

A significant and extensive reform of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (ICCP) was recently enacted by the Italian Government. Legislative Decree No. 149/2022 (the Reform), became applicable as of February 28, 2023.

The Reform introduced material changes to the rules governing proceedings before State Courts, with the aim of increasing efficiency and cutting the time required to decide a case. Extremely relevant changes also impacted arbitration, making Italy an even more arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Below the most significant features.

Reinforced Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators

With a view to aligning Italian arbitration law with the practice of the main international arbitration institutions, the amendments impose on each arbitrator a duty to disclose, at the time of acceptance of their appointment, the existence or absence of any circumstances that could lead to a challenge pursuant to the relevant Italian law provision (Article 815, para. 1, ICCP).

Without this declaration, the arbitrator’s acceptance will be considered null and void.

Moreover, article 815 of the ICCP provides a list of grounds for challenging an arbitrator. Until now, such grounds were specific and mostly related to the arbitrator’s relationship with the parties. With a view to strengthening the guarantees of impartiality and independence of

Executive Board and Managing Directors Not Personally Liable for Anti-Trust Fines Imposed on Company

by Thomas Hauss, Dr. Damian Hecker and Tobias Meyer | Feb 8, 2024 | Court Judgment, Germany

In summer 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled that board members and managing directors are not personally liable for fines imposed on a company.

The Decision of the OLG Düsseldorf

The case in question concerned recourse claims by two stainless steel companies against their former board member due to his involvement in a stainless steel cartel.

After official investigations revealed that a board member of both companies had been involved in the exchange of competitively sensitive information for several years, the German Federal Cartel Office imposed a fine of EUR 4.1 million on one of the companies. In addition, a further fine was imposed personally on the board member himself.

Besides the reimbursement of the fine, the suing companies also demanded compensation for the legal defense costs incurred in connection with the fine proceedings.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf rejected the recourse claims of the companies against their managing director in its entirety and, with regard to the fine imposed on one of the companies, determined that recourse against the acting body was not eligible.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf justified its decision by stating that in the alternative the assessment under antitrust law would be

New Whistleblowing Rules in Italy

Representative Proceedings | A Low Bar to the “Same Interest” Requirement?

D&O Insurances and Acting Board Members have the Same Burden of Proof in Direct Proceedings with the Injured Company

New Reform Makes Italy Even More Attractive for Arbitration

Executive Board and Managing Directors Not Personally Liable for Anti-Trust Fines Imposed on Company

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS