Despite the long investment lead-in times, the size of the investments and the administrative hurdles to be overcome, the energy market is continuously evolving. Nctm has expertise in financing, in contracts, in administrative law and in the regulation of the energy sector. We provide highly specialised and comprehensive advice to the biggest and most innovative energy and financing companies in this sector.
Nctm has particular expertise in renewable energies as well as in innovate and complex energy structures. Our expertise in this field includes:
- Negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements for the supply of gas and other fuels
- Acquisition of companies in the energy field
- Development agreements, framework agreements, joint venture agreements
- Sales agreements for energy and “green” certificates
- Legal due diligence on energy companies and administrative authorisations for project facilities for the production of electric energy from renewable and traditional sources
- Advice and assistance to fully exploit the fiscal aspect of these projects
- Funding agreements in project financing and leasing
- Drafting and negotiation of tolling agreements
- Agreements covering financial risks related to the buying and selling of base spot energy
- EPC agreements
- O&M agreements
- Management Service agreements
- EFET, ISDA, FIDIC agreements
The UK is nothing if not pragmatic. The pragmatism has sometime been referred to as perfidiousness: perfidious Albion. What is sure is that the UK will approach the divorce with the EU in a very pragmatic fashion. It will seek to develop bi-lateral relations with its direct trading partners. It will seek to revive the trade pre erences in the Commonwealth. It will seek independent influence in all international bodies.
Brexenergy: a roadblock for the European Energy Market ?
Increasing interconnectivity with Continental Europe will necessarily require co-operation between UK and EU Internal Energy Market in any Brexit scenario. If the UK is permitted to participate in the Energy Union following Brexit, it would need to negotiate an appropriate partnership with EU and adopt – and comply with – the relevant European law.
The questions to be addressed are: can the UK continue to participate in the liberalisation of the European Energy Market (EEM), can the EEM continue the liberalisation process without the UK ?
It’s important to underline the extent to which EU and UK energy policies are closely aligned: in many respects, the UK has taken the lead in shaping EU energy policy, with its focus on open and transparent markets, energy security, low carbon energy sources, energy efficiency and high levels of environmental protection. If the UK was to stay within European Economic Area (EEA) as a Member of the European Free Trade Associatiobn (EFTA), most of these objectives and constraints would remain.
Given to the UK’s liberalised energy policy, we expect that the UK will continue to implement and be supportive of many aspects of the EU’s Third Energy package (an EU legislative package with the central aim of liberalising European gas and electricity markets). For example, the ownership unbunding requirements, which require the separate ownership and operation of electricity/gas transmission systems for any generation, production and supply interests; the level playing field; and the standards transparency. The UK Government also appears committed to market-based interventions in energy markets and supports EU initiatives such as market coupling. We therefore consider that business should plan to continue to comply with these requirements.
Consequently, if the UK remains part of the EEA, the EU State Aid rules will continue to apply to the energy infrastructure and support schemes as today, since the EEA Agreement contains a similar prohibition. However, any subsidy will also need to comply with the WTO subsidy regime which is similar in its intentions to the EU State aids rules. The WTO regime disciplines the use of subsidies and regulates the actions which WTO members can take to counter the effects of subsidies.
From a legal point of view, one of the most important question needing a quick answer is how the UK would join the EEA Agreement given its more advanced implementation of EU Law. The answer will only be known as part of the Brexit negotiations, after the triggering of the famous Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. In fact, the exact nature of the exit and the future UK-EU relationships is still to be negotiated and it is expected that the United Kingdom will attempt to extract favorable terms in a a new trading arrangements that still provides the country access to a single market, while the European Union will resit such an arrangement.
As this is the first time that a Member State has left the “28-Countries Club”, there are many significt uncertainties over substance, process and timelines. In the interim period and while negotiations are ongoing, the legal status of the EU-UK relationship (and all attendant rules and regualtions) will remain unchanged. But there will be political changes: the UK will not participate in the next European Councils and Councils of Ministers. Over the near term, uncertainty will be the defining feature of the direct and indirect impacts on energy markets. Nonetheless, it is possible to begin to outline some of the impacts on the energy system.
The Brexit impact on Energy Markets .
Concerning the Direct Impact , as evidenced in the immediate reaction to the Brexit vote, and because the status quo will remain in place on the regulatory and trade front, the direct impact on energy markets in the short term will be supposely “..limited to the volatility of commodity prices, most prominently the orice of crude oil”.
The Indirect Impact on Energy Markets is perhaps more significant in the near and medium term than the direct impacts and moderated through the effect the British referendum will have on global economic growth. An example of indirect impact is the cost of access to credit. The risk premium on investments will likely rise, both in the UK and elsewhere, but “investors will remain risk averse until the long term is more predictable, and this will likely stiffen investments and rescricts the flow of capital even further across global markets”.
There is also the possibility of Uncertain Impact on Energy Markets. Going forward, much of impact on energy markets will be determined by the future contours of the UK relationship with the European Union and even more on the shape of the Union itself, which will be determined in the months ahead by a complex web of political and technical factors. There are three major areas of uncertainty when it comes to the Brexit’s impact on energy and climate policy that will be influenced by these negotioations: the future of climate policy, the future of British access to the EU market, and additional potential EU exits. These areas are by far most consequential for energy markets and policy, but are by no means the only areas of uncertainty.
Climate Policy and multilateral agreements
When it comes to multilateral climate policy, the United Kingdom – the European Union’s second largest emitter of CO2 – has partecipated in UN climate negotiations as part of the broader EU bloc, and its climate commitment to the recent Paris Treaty was submitted as part of the broader European commitment. What will happen to the EU target – will it need to be resubmitted, and would any submission need to be more or less stringent without the united Kingdom – remains to be seen. Likewise, whether they will submit a new climate pledge, and the shape and scope of that pledge, is also up in the air. However, the United Kingdom is on the path to cut emissions by 2030 under a domestic law. The broader EU negotiating dynamic on climate moving forward may also change. The United Kingdom is often credited with both pushing for more stringent climate targets and for the adoption of market-based mitigation (rather than top-down-wide stadards and goal setting). How the European approach to climate negotiations may change without the presence of the British remains to be seen.
Access to EU Market : the Framework
A considerable impact of a potential Brexit for energy markets will be determined by the shape of the future EU-UK economic relationship (as well as the political future of the United Kingdom itself). There are, essentially, five possibilities for the relationship: 1) status quo – the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union and remains part of the common market; 2) the United Kingdom leaves the Union but retains full access to the EU single market (the Norway model); 3) the United Kingdom has restricted but significant access to the common market on a bilateral basis (the Swiss model); 4) the United Kingdom does not have acces to the common market but negotiates a separate free trade agreement with the Union (the Canada model); 5) the United Kingdom and the European Union are not able to negotiate preferential trading terms, and access to the common market would be premised on the World Trade Organization rules.
Access to EU Energy Markets
While it would make economic sense for the United Kingdom to remain part of Europe’s internal markets for electric power and natural gas (50% of UK imported gas comes through the Union), that outcome remains to be negotiated. What is less clear, however, is whether the United Kingdom would drop some specific European measures, such as imposed renewable energy targets and Europe’s Industrial Emissions Directive, which controls emissions on power plants. The regulatory upheavel could be significant for energy development in the United Kingdom, with energy regulations currently set by the European Union likely to be the subject of future negotiations. Moreover, the status of access to the common market is also likely to impact the decision of whether the UK continues to participate in the EU emission trading system, which regulates greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, the broader energy market impacts may be determined by the future of the European Union itself. The British vote to leave the Union is likely to propt other anti-EU forces in other EU countries to hold similar referenda. If the Union were to break apart – either marginally or more substantially, or dissolve altoghether – the consequences for energy markets could be profound.
It is uncertain how the outcome of the referendum will affect political fragmentation across the European Union. A number of countries, including Poland and Hungary, have incumbent euroskeptic governments, while many other member states have growing ranks of opposition parties to current governments who share a skeptical view of the European Union as an institution. If there are other referenda or movements toward exit aming these member states, it is likely to have major impacts on global economic growth and confidence in the markets in general, which in turn would have severe effects on energy markets.
The contents of this article is meant for informative purposes only and cannot be considered as
For further information please contact email@example.com
 See and read in following pages: Norvegian Model, Swiss Model etc.
 Andrew Stanley, Centre for Strategic Studies.
 Global Fossil Energy and Climate Change mitigation, in Climate Change, May 2016, volume 136, Issue 1, pp. 69-82
Grounds for ineligibility or forfeiture of statutory auditors who are members of an association of professionals
Pursuant to Article 2399, letter c), of the Italian Civil Code, statutory auditors whose patrimonial relationships with the company or its subsidiaries may affect their independence cannot be appointed and, if appointed, cease from their office. It has been questioned whether the case whereby a statutory auditor is a member of an association of professionals providing consultancy services to the same company reflects the case provided for by the law. Although the answer to the question was generally affirmative, doubts still remain as to the criteria adopted by the Supreme Court in order to determine the cases in which the independence of a statutory auditor can be actually considered as compromised.
The scope of the delegation of management in limited liability companies (s.r.l.): content and limits
By decision no. 25085 of 7 December 2016, the Supreme Court established the legitimacy of a general delegation of management, by the board of directors to individual managing directors with the power to act separately, to the extent that it is not aimed at excluding the exercise of a concurrent managing power by the managing body.
Data processing for marketing purposes: the protection of legal entities
By order No. 4 of 12 January 2017, the Italian Data Protection Authority set out the discipline on personal data processing for marketing purposes, finding the unlawfulness of both the processing of data collected through forms available on websites and the processing of data (namely, telephone numbers) autonomously collected on the Web.
Administrative liability of entities under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 within groups of companies
Liability can be found, under Legislative Decree No. 31 of 2001, on the part of a holding company for offences committed in connection with the activities of its subsidiaries, provided that a) the person acting on behalf of the holding company acts in concert with the person committing the offence on behalf of the controlled entity; and b) the holding company appears to have obtained a concrete advantage from, or pursued an actual interest by way of, the offence committed in the context of the subsidiary’s activity.
The liability of non-executive directors and the duty to act in an informed way
According to decision no. 17441, of 31 August 2016, of the First Division of the Supreme Civil Court, the liability of directors without management power cannot originate from a general failure to supervise – that would be identified in the facts as a strict liability – but must be attributed to the breach of the duty to act in an informed way, on the basis of both information to be released by executive directors and information that non-executive directors can gather on their own initiative. Therefore, the determination of the prerequisites for the liability of delegating directors fits in a context accentuating the distinction between the duties imposed on managing directors and those typical of non-executive directors.
Considerations regarding the possibility to waive the termination effect of a notice to perform
Judgment No. 4205 of 3 March 2016 of the Supreme Court, Second Division, gives us the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the different opinions expressed by courts and legal commentators regarding the possibility to waive the termination effect of a notice to perform.
Validity of the shareolders’ agreements which provide a preventive waiver of the liability action against the directors when taken at the conclusion of the mandate
With the decision of 28th September 2015, No. 19193, the Court of Rome stated the validity of the shareholders’ agreement clauses which provide that the “incoming” shareholders undertake not to bring the liability action against the “outgoing” directors or not to vote for it in the general meeting.
The Supreme Court’s overruling: the banking and finance agreement signed exclusively by the client is null and void
The Supreme Court decides again the issue of the validity of the so called “single signature” agreements, i.e. the copy of banking and finance agreements, kept in the bank’s archives, bearing the client’s signature and not the bank’s one. The Supreme Court holds that these agreements are null and void, thus unenforceable vis à vis the account holder.
Purchase of shares of a general partnership: can the mistake on the value of the share be legitimately qualified as an essential mistake?
The Tribunal of Milan has stated that, as a rule – also with reference to the purchase of shares of a general partnership – the contract can be avoided, upon application of a party, for an essential mistake, only if the contract contains an explicit guarantee on the value of the assets and on the quality of the goods of the company (a guarantee that, according to the Tribunal, the contract at hand lacked).
The new rules regarding the proceedings before the Supreme Court (Decree Law n. 168/2016, converted into Law n. 197/2016)
With another “late summer intervention”, the legislator intervened once more as a matter of urgency to modify the code of civil procedure, with particular reference to the rules regarding the proceedings before the Supreme court: on August 31, 2016, Decree Law n. 168/2016 was published, entitled “Urgent measures for the resolution of disputes before the Supreme Court and for the efficiency of the judicial offices” (“D.L. 168/2016”).
The joined chambers of the court of cassation on the qualification and challenge of the non-final award and of the partial award
“An award that partially decides on the merits of a dispute, immediately challengeable pursuant to art. 827, paragraph 3 of the code of civil procedure, is both that of a generic condemnation pursuant to art. 278 of the code of civil procedure, and the award that decides one or some of the questions of the case, without defining the entire proceedings; instead, the awards that decide preliminary issues are not immediately challengeable.”
Europe Must Go On
The 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome sees the EU much changed from its early origins. We have moved from an economic community to a Union based on civil and human rights and the values common to the peoples of Europe. It has been, and is, a great success.
However it is clear that the Union is not without its troubles on this important anniversary. The Brexit negotiations are about to start. There are nationalist and decentralizing tendencies in many Member States and important elections in Germany and France. There are real problems of immigration and the absence of, or the uneven distribution of, economic growth.
These problems should not daunt us. Our fathers in the integration process faced greater problems. They sought to make peace and to make an institution to guarantee peace from the ashes of the most destructive of European wars.
What we must do is face up to our problems and resolve them. We have great shoulders to stand on. We have been given the evolving EU treaties, the Single Market, a strong Court of Justice in Luxembourg, good competition law, the rights of citizens, in other words a strong legal framework.
This is no time for faintheartedness. We must move on with courage and ensure that the Union is with us for more than another 60 years.
In this issue, we analyse a decision of the Italian Consiglio di Stato according to which the publication of applications for renewal of existing maritime port concessions in the EU Official Journal is not required. Any third party wishing to submit competing bids is however guaranteed by the possibility of preventively inquiring about the expiry of a concession as well as by the investigation conducted by the Port Authority (today Port System Authority), which must comply with the principle of selecting the tenderer offering the «best guarantees for a profitable use of the concession».
We then examine the differences in Italian law between a contract of carriage and a procurement contract for the supply of carriage services. It is important to properly classify the type of contract, and here we explain why.
Let us then examine two recent judgments of the Italian Regional Administrative Courts. The first one is on the possible ways of awarding a maritime concession. The second one relates to the applicability of the Italian Public Procurement Code to the management of intermodal freight terminals, the unavoidable consequences of which are summarised here.
In light of the forthcoming entry into force of the IMO Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, we look at the impact it is expected to have on the shipping sector. One of the major problems is that, to date, there are no clear indications on how to make ships compliant with the new standards. Moreover, there are countries who have more stringent regulations than the IMO Convention. The risk is therefore to invest in equipment that can be deemed unsuitable at a later stage.
A recent ruling of the Italian Supreme Court allows us to briefly discuss the issue of non-payment of insurance premiums and consequent suspension of cover. The Supreme Court confirmed that insurance coverage applies if an insured event occurs within the «grace period», regardless of whether the next premium instalment is paid.
Concerning airports, the Italian Supreme Court opened the door to possibly finding liability on the part of ENAC (the Authority supervising airport activities and air transport in Italy) in case of airplane damage caused by poor maintenance of taxiways.
Finally, we conclude with our usual review of the news from the world of maritime and port labour. The most important news is about the renewal, in Italy, of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement for shipping agencies’ executives, which brought some improvement to the current situation.
We want to thank our colleagues at Nctm Brussels’s office for their contributions highlighting the most significant actions taken by EU institutions in the international shipping and trade sector.
You will also find a list of our events taking place at our Milan and Rome offices, in addition to the usual update on our firm’s activities over the past two months.
According to the Court of Cassation a concordato plan not describing in detail how it can be implemented is not feasible
The Court of Cassation (decision No. 4915 of 27 February 2017) lowered the threshold allowing the Bankruptcy Court to review the feasibility of the concordato preventivo proposal.
Does a concordato proposal need to assign all future earnings to the creditors ?
The Court of Florence (November 2, 2016) confirmed that the debtor can retain part of his assets, with a view to support the company’s recovery and in derogation to principles of liability of the debtor
Cram down pursuant to Art. 182-septies of the Italian Bankruptcy Law, if the agreement is more convenient for the bank than bankruptcy liquidation
A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors