The Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) weakens the government's "golden power" over Unicredit-BPM. But the Ministry of Economy and Finance is fine.

On the same topic:

For the Meloni government, the Unicredit-Banco BPM banking dossier is increasingly a hot potato. Not only has the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR)—in an unprecedented ruling in Italy—undermined its golden power , but, according to the latest rumors, the European Commission has again accelerated its intervention in favor of the group led by Andrea Orcel . In short, the infamous letter, requesting the removal of the requirements imposed on the acquisition of the Milanese bank, is indeed on its way from Brussels and should be delivered to Palazzo Chigi on Monday.

Meanwhile, however, the Ministry of Economy and Finance does not appear disappointed by the Regional Administrative Court's ruling, despite it having recognized the illegitimacy of at least two of the four requirements imposed on UniCredit. Ministry sources explain that the administrative court largely upheld the golden power framework contained in the Prime Ministerial Decree. Conversely, UniCredit sources state that there is no doubt the government decree must be rewritten, given that the Regional Administrative Court essentially nullified it with an immediately enforceable ruling (an official position is expected this weekend).

For its part, Banco BPM, following the government's interpretation of the administrative court's ruling, is asking UniCredit to clarify its intentions regarding the public exchange offer, which, in its view, has generated uncertainty in the market for eight months. Indeed, the offer expires on July 23, and the bank led by Andrea Orcel is expected to comment on the matter: will it lapse or continue? In light of the latest developments, the bank would have the right to ask Consob for a further extension of the deadline.

At this delicate time, everyone is pushing their own agenda, but can a 71-page ruling lend itself to such conflicting interpretations? The facts show that the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) ruled in favor of Unicredit when it deemed illegitimate the government's request to require the bank to maintain a certain loan-to-deposit ratio for at least five years and to maintain the level of its project financing investment portfolio indefinitely—in other words, when the executive intervenes in the merits of corporate policy. Regarding Anima's investments in government bonds, the TAR also acknowledged that the state itself acknowledged, during the trial, that this was a recommendation and not a true statute of limitations. The only real point on which the court did not intervene was the obligation to leave Russia, a statute of limitations that, therefore, stands in its entirety because its assessment is not within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.

If this is the case, the government has two options: either revise the Prime Ministerial Decree, acknowledging the TAR ruling, which would significantly ease the statute of limitations, or appeal the court's ruling to the Council of State , which would mean continuing the litigation. In short, it's the government that should decide what to do next, rather than Unicredit, which can only hope that Consob President Paolo Savona will grant a new deadline given the urgency of clarifying the situation. It has already done so once; there's no law preventing the supervisory authority from doing so a second time.

More on these topics: