The Foreign The Foreign Investment Regulation Review Investment Regulation Review Third Edition Editor Brian A Facey Law Business Research . The Foreign Investment Regulation Review The Foreign Investment Regulation Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Foreign Investment Regulation Review - Edition 3 (published in August 2015 – editor Brian Facey) For further information please email Nick.Barette@lbresearch.com . The Foreign Investment Regulation Review Third Edition Editor Brian A Facey Law Business Research Ltd . PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Katherine Jablonowska, Thomas Lee, Felicity Bown, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGER Jessica Parsons PUBLISHING MANAGER Lucy Brewer MARKETING ASSISTANT Rebecca Mogridge EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Shani Bans HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Janina Godowska SUBEDITOR Caroline Herbert MANAGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2015 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of August 2015, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed to the Publisher – gideon.roberton@lbresearch.com ISBN 978-1-909830-65-3 Printed in Great Britain by Encompass Print Solutions, Derbyshire Tel: 0844 2480 112 .

THE LAW REVIEWS THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS REVIEW THE RESTRUCTURING REVIEW THE PRIVATE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW THE EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE BANKING REGULATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW THE MERGER CONTROL REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW THE INWARD INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION REVIEW THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REVIEW THE CORPORATE IMMIGRATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW THE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS REVIEW THE REAL ESTATE LAW REVIEW THE PRIVATE EQUITY REVIEW THE ENERGY REGULATION AND MARKETS REVIEW THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW THE ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW THE PRIVATE WEALTH AND PRIVATE CLIENT REVIEW . THE MINING LAW REVIEW THE EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION REVIEW THE ANTI-BRIBERY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION REVIEW THE CARTELS AND LENIENCY REVIEW THE TAX DISPUTES AND LITIGATION REVIEW THE LIFE SCIENCES LAW REVIEW THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE LAW REVIEW THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REVIEW THE DOMINANCE AND MONOPOLIES REVIEW THE AVIATION LAW REVIEW THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT REGULATION REVIEW THE ASSET TRACING AND RECOVERY REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCY REVIEW THE OIL AND GAS LAW REVIEW THE FRANCHISE LAW REVIEW THE PRODUCT REGULATION AND LIABILITY REVIEW THE SHIPPING LAW REVIEW THE ACQUISITION AND LEVERAGED FINANCE REVIEW THE PRIVACY, DATA PROTECTION AND CYBERSECURITY LAW REVIEW THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LAW REVIEW THE TRANSPORT FINANCE LAW REVIEW THE SECURITIES LITIGATION REVIEW THE LENDING AND SECURED FINANCE REVIEW www.TheLawReviews.co.uk . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publisher acknowledges and thanks the following law firms for their learned assistance throughout the preparation of this book: ALI BUDIARDJO, NUGROHO, REKSODIPUTRO ALRUD ATSUMI & SAKAI BENTSI-ENCHILL, LETSA & ANKOMAH BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP CONSORTIUM LEGAL – EL SALVADOR DARROIS VILLEY MAILLOT BROCHIER ENGLING, STRITTER AND PARTNERS ESTUDIO BECCAR VARELA FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER HENGELER MUELLER PARTNERSCHAFT VON RECHTSANWÄLTEN MBB KING & WOOD MALLESONS MATHESON MJLA LEGAL PINHEIRO NETO ADVOGADOS RAJAH & TANN SINGAPORE LLP SHARDUL AMARCHAND MANGALDAS & CO i . Acknowledgements SPECHT & PARTNER RECHTSANWALT GMBH URÍA MENÉNDEZ VIETNAM INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM (VILAF) ii . CONTENTS Editor’s Preface ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vii Brian A Facey Chapter 1 ARGENTINA�����������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Ricardo V Seeber Chapter 2 AUSTRIA���������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Ingo Braun and Philipp Baubin Chapter 3 BRAZIL������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 Ricardo Russo and Gabriel Dias Teixeira de Oliveira Chapter 4 CANADA���������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Jason Gudofsky, Navin Joneja, Julie Soloway and Cassandra Brown Chapter 5 CHINA�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������59 Jianwen Huang Chapter 6 EL SALVADOR������������������������������������������������������������������������72 Diego Martín Menjívar Chapter 7 FRANCE����������������������������������������������������������������������������������86 Didier Théophile and Olivia Chriqui Chapter 8 GERMANY������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Jan Bonhage and Vera Jungkind Chapter 9 GHANA����������������������������������������������������������������������������������113 Rosa Kudoadzi and Daniel Imadi Chapter 10 INDIA������������������������������������������������������������������������������������122 Shardul Shroff, Amit Kumar and Ambarish iii . Contents Chapter 11 INDONESIA��������������������������������������������������������������������������138 Theodoor Bakker, Chandrawati Dewi and Gustaaf Reerink Chapter 12 IRELAND������������������������������������������������������������������������������151 Gina Conheady and Kacey O’Driscoll Chapter 13 ITALY�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������166 Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini and Francesco Iodice Chapter 14 JAPAN������������������������������������������������������������������������������������183 Takafumi Uematsu Chapter 15 NAMIBIA�������������������������������������������������������������������������������196 Axel Stritter Chapter 16 PAKISTAN�����������������������������������������������������������������������������219 Mujtaba Jamal and Maria Farooq Chapter 17 PORTUGAL���������������������������������������������������������������������������232 Joaquim Caimoto Duarte, Verónica Martins Mendes, Miguel Stokes and Hélder Santos Correia Chapter 18 RUSSIA�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������247 Vassily Rudomino, Ruslana Karimova and Ksenia Tarkhova Chapter 19 SINGAPORE�������������������������������������������������������������������������259 Abdul Jabbar Bin Karam Din and Lee Xin Mei Chapter 20 SPAIN�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������272 Edurne Navarro and Alfonso Ventoso Chapter 21 UNITED KINGDOM�����������������������������������������������������������286 Alex Potter Chapter 22 UNITED STATES�����������������������������������������������������������������308 Robert Schlossberg and Christine Laciak iv . Contents Chapter 23 VIETNAM�����������������������������������������������������������������������������327 Nguyen Truc Hien And Kevin B Hawkins Appendix 1 ABOUT THE AUTHORS�����������������������������������������������������343 Appendix 2 CONTRIBUTING LAW FIRMS’ CONTACT DETAILS���361 v . EDITOR’S PREFACE I am pleased to present the third edition of The Foreign Investment Regulation Review. Building on our most recent publication of last year, this edition provides insight into the national regulatory framework for foreign investment review in major jurisdictions around the world, as well as an overview of current trends and developments in this field. Over the past few years, foreign investment has grown to match levels that were attained during the pre-economic crisis era of the mid-2000s. Relatedly, national economies have continued their recovery from the global financial crisis; on 19 May 2015, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a new all-time high. Within this environment, foreign investment often constitutes a source of capital that is key to promoting and sustaining domestic economic growth. From the perspective of investors, it can represent an important opportunity to expand into new markets or to implement efficiencyenhancing improvements to a supply chain.

Legislators and regulators operating within this framework frequently face the challenge of attracting sufficient capital to develop the local economy while at the same time protecting national interests, including national security. The diversity among foreign investment regimes reflects the fact that each nation has a unique set of goals and priorities to consider. Some countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia, have recently introduced reforms aimed at attracting greater foreign investment. At the same time, the experience of jurisdictions such as Canada highlights that foreign investment review remains a balancing act between attracting foreign capital and protecting domestic interests in certain sectors of the economy.

One common theme across jurisdictions is that foreign investment reviews continue to present complex issues for businesses, regulatory authorities and legal counsel alike. Both legal practitioners and companies seeking to do business internationally will benefit by familiarising themselves with the regulatory frameworks outlined in this treatise. Of particular importance, this edition provides readers with practical guidance to navigate investments in major jurisdictions by anticipating key timing and substantive issues. We hope that it allows investors and businesses being acquired to better evaluate vii .

Editor’s Preface and manage risks associated with investments that may be subject to foreign investment review, ultimately reducing transaction uncertainty and delay. This edition contains contributions from leading experts practising in 23 jurisdictions around the world. I would like to express my gratitude to each author and law firm involved in this project for their commitment of both their expertise and time. Please note that the views expressed in this book are those of the authors, and not those of their firms, any specific clients, the editor or the publisher. Brian A Facey Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Toronto August 2015 viii . Chapter 13 ITALY Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini and Francesco Iodice1 I INTRODUCTION A 2012 reform of the government ‘golden share’ has for the first time introduced a comprehensive investment control regime in certain strategic sectors in Italy, which impacts mainly, although not exclusively, investments by non-EEA2 persons. The new Italian investment control framework is set forth in Decree Law No. 21 of 15 March 2012, as amended and ratified by Law No. 56 of 11 May 2012 (the Law). The Law grants the government certain special powers to veto or condition the purchase of interests in the share capital of, or the implementation of certain extraordinary transactions by, Italian companies active in the fields of defence and national security, or energy, transport and communications. Although in recent years Italy has ranked behind certain significantly smaller economies in terms of the value of the net inflows of foreign direct investments,3 such investments represent an essential part of the Italian economy (according to World Bank research, in 2013, foreign direct investments amounted to US$13.1 billion).4 Whether the new investment control regime has had a deterrent effect or, on the contrary, has resulted in 1 2 3 4 Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini is a partner and Francesco Iodice is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. The European Economic Area (EEA) comprises the 28 Member States of the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Defined by the World Bank as the ‘net inflows of investment to acquire a lasting management interest (10 per cent or more of voting stock) in an enterprise operating in an economy other than that of the investor. It is the sum of equity capital, reinvestment of earnings, other long-term capital and short-term capital as shown in the balance of payments’. Data available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD. 166 . Italy attracting new capital through a more transparent framework for the exercise of investment oversight is still somewhat unclear, given the relatively short time this new regime has been in force for and the few known cases the government has exercised its powers to date. The impact of the reform upon future investments will therefore continue to depend on how the government applies its powers in practice. Foreign investments in Italy have traditionally involved a wide set of targets, from manufacturing industries to infrastructure. Headline transactions in the past two years involving potentially sensitive sectors include: a the 2013 acquisition of the aero-engine business of Avio SpA (an aviation group) by US conglomerate General Electric; b the 2013 acquisition of a further indirect equity interest in Telecom Italia SpA (the incumbent Italian telecom company) by Telefónica SA (the Spanish telecom company); c the 2014 acquisition of control of Piaggio Aero Industries SpA (an aerospace manufacturing company) by Mubadala Development Company (an Abu Dhabi investment company); d the 2014 acquisition of a relevant minority interest in CdP Reti Srl (the Italian state-controlled holding company owning a controlling interest in Terna SpA and Snam SpA, which own and operate, respectively, the Italian electricity grid and gas transport infrastructure) by State Grid Europe Limited (a subsidiary of State Grid Corporation China, a Chinese state-owned electric utilities company); e the 2014 acquisition of control over Società Aeroporto Toscano (S.A.T.) Galileo Galilei SpA (the company operating the Pisa airport) and Aeroporto di Firenze SpA (the company operating the Florence airport) by Corporación América Italia Srl (a subsidiary of Corporación América SA, the Argentine infrastructure company); f the 2014 initial public offering of Raiway SpA (the company owning and operating the signal and broadcasting network of Rai SpA, the Italian public broadcasting company); g the 2015 acquisition of the telecommunication tower business unit of Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA (the Italian telecom company) by Abertis Infraestructuras SA (the Spanish conglomerate); and h the 2015 envisaged initial public offering of INWIT SpA (the company operating the wireless tower network of Telecom Italia SpA). II FOREIGN INVESTMENT REGIME As a general rule, investments in Italian companies active in the fields of defence and national security, or energy, transport and communications, are subject to a prior review procedure, as a result of which the government may exercise certain special powers that, depending on the target, may be more or less stringent. The government will determine periodically which assets are subject to the investment regime set forth in the Law. Indeed, as a condition for the Law to become effective, the government is required to identify: a activities deemed strategic for the defence and national security system (strategic security activities); and 167 .

Italy b networks, plants, assets and relationships deemed strategic for the national interest in the fields of energy, transportation and communications (strategic assets). The government may exercise its special powers under the Law exclusively with respect to companies performing any strategic security activities or holding any strategic assets. Accordingly, in principle, foreign investments in any other sector are not subject to any further general limitation or prior review apart from the general reciprocity rules (see Section II.iii, infra) and any applicable antitrust clearance.5 However, certain sector-specific regulatory authorisations may be necessary (see Section II.iv, infra). i Defence and national security The review procedure and the government’s special powers relating to investments in a company performing a strategic security activity are particularly strict and apply to investments made by any person, regardless of nationality (i.e., including EEA persons or entities). 5 Pursuant to Article 16 of Law No. 287 of 10 October 1990 (Italian Antitrust Act), notification of acquisitions and other concentration transactions must be made to the Italian Antitrust Authority prior to closing when the aggregate turnover produced at the domestic level by the target and the acquirer and the turnover produced at the domestic level by the target exceed certain thresholds, which are periodically updated by the Italian Antitrust Authority (in 2015, €492 million and €49 million, respectively). However, in the event that the concentration meets the requirements set out in EU Regulation No. 139/2004 (both in terms of thresholds and cross-border effects of the transaction), notification of the transaction must be made instead to the European Commission. 168 .

Italy The strategic security activities are currently identified by Prime Minister Decree No. 108 of 6 June 2014 (2014 Decree),6 which include activities falling within the remit of the Ministry of Defence7 and the Ministry of Interior.8 6 7 The 2014 Decree was published in the Italian Official Journal of 31 July 2014. In particular, such activities are defined as the study, research, design, development, production, integration and support to the life cycle (including logistics) of: a t  he following systems and materials, as further specified in the 2014 Decree: command, control, computer and information (C4I) systems; advanced detectors integrated in C4I networks; manned and unmanned systems that are suitable to oppose improvised explosive devices; advanced weapon systems, integrated into C4I networks, which are indispensable to ensure an advantage margin on possible adversaries and therefore aimed at the security and effectiveness of operations; advanced aeronautical systems provided with advanced detectors integrated into the C4I networks; and aerospace and military navy propulsion systems ensuring high performances and reliability; and b  ertain specific technologies: stealth technologies; nanotechnologies; technologies for c high thermal degree composite materials; meta-materials technologies; and design and production of frequency selective surfaces (FSS) or materials (radar-absorbent materials; FSS radome materials; high thermal degree materials applied to produce space, aeronautical or nuclear engines; materials to produce satellites, space shields or parts of weapons, including launchers; and materials for the abatement of infrared or acoustic traces). 8 The strategic security activities over which the Ministry of Interior has jurisdiction have been defined by the 2014 Decree as the study, research, design, development, production, integration and support to the life cycle (including logistics) of: a  systems and sensors to be used for observation purposes (optic and radar), monitoring and control of the territory, in the context of the tasks of protection of public security, public rescue and civil defence; observation systems (optic and radar) for the monitoring and control of territory installed in aircraft, boat units, and amphibious and land vehicles; propulsion systems, power transmissions and remote-command transmissions that are ancillary to high-performance and fidelity air and navy engines relating to aircraft and boat units to be used in observation tasks (optic and radar), monitoring and control of territory; ballistic protection systems; and information and communication systems (including satellites) as well as systems for the collection, classification and management of information and data developed and used for civil defence protection purposes; and b  rivate virtual networks used by public administrations that are in charge of public p security, public rescue, civil defence, justice and international relationships; telecom networks owned by the Ministry of Interior to be used in the context of tasks of protection of public security, public rescue and civil defence; connections used exclusively to establish and ensure the functioning of inter-police networks used by police forces and the Ministry of Defence; systems (including cryptosystems) and related algorithms used to elaborate, protect and transmit classified information on a secure basis; the Ministry of Interior’s real-time monitoring of radioactivity; and information systems used to collect, classify and manage information and data, including when provided by police forces, in the context of implementing directives issued by the Ministry of Interior exercising its 169 . Italy With respect to companies performing any such strategic security activity (or holding any such asset), in the event that fundamental interests of national defence or security could be materially affected, the government may: a impose specific conditions (relating to the security of procurement and information, the transfer of technologies and export controls) on the purchase of an interest in any such company; b veto the purchase by any person (whether directly or indirectly, individually or jointly), other than the Italian state or state-controlled entities, of an interest in the voting share capital of any such company that, given its size, may jeopardise defence or national security interests;9 or c veto the adoption of resolutions by such company’s shareholders or board of directors relating to certain extraordinary transactions (such as mergers, demergers, assets disposals, winding-up and amendments concerning the corporate purpose or equity ownership caps in the by-laws of certain state-controlled companies,10 or relating to the transfer of ownership or other rights on assets or the creation of encumbrances on assets). ii Energy, transport and communications The investment regime relating to strategic assets in these fields is less burdensome than that applicable to defence and national security. Not only is the scope of the government’s special powers more limited and subject to more significant conditions, but the overall regime applies to investments made by non-EEA persons.11 The government identified these strategic assets by means of the Decree of the President of the Republic No. 85 of 25 March 2014 (2014 Regulation). This Regulation identifies certain energy, transport and communications infrastructures (such as the 9 10 11 powers as a national public security authority, or when developed and used to prevent or prosecute crimes against public security, border controls and clandestine immigration. In which case the buyer may not exercise any rights other than the economic rights attached to the shares, and must dispose of the shares within one year. Pursuant to Article 3 of Decree Law No.

332 of 31 May 1994 (as amended and ratified by Law No. 474 of 30 July 1994), the by-laws of state-controlled companies active in the fields of defence and national security may provide for ownership caps of up to 5 per cent of their share capital. Any persons holding any interest in excess of such threshold may not exercise voting rights relating to their exceeding portion of the shares.

Such clauses may not be amended for three years following their introduction. However, the ownership cap does not apply in the event that such threshold is exceeded as a result of a tender offer, provided that tenders amount to at least 75 per cent of the voting share capital. Non-EEA persons are defined by the Law as any individual or entity that is not resident, is not domiciled, and does not have its registered office, headquarters or centre of main interest in any EU or EEA Member State, nor is it established therein. 170 . Italy national electricity grid, the telecom fixed line and gas transport networks), but not the relevant service providers12 (i.e., those entities authorised to provide the related services).13 Investments in a company holding any such strategic asset are subject to prior review by the government, which as a result may: a veto any resolution or transaction by a company holding any strategic asset that would result in a change of ownership or control of such asset, provided that such change of ownership or control could cause an exceptional situation where the public interest relating to the safety and operation of any strategic asset could be materially jeopardised, and such exceptional situation is not addressed by any relevant domestic or European legal provision;14 and b condition the purchase by any non-EEA person of a controlling interest (whether individually or jointly) in a company holding any strategic asset on such investor undertaking certain commitments aimed at protecting the above-mentioned public interests. The government may even veto such transactions in the event that the acquisition raises an exceptional threat of a material prejudice to such public interests (which cannot be addressed by commitments undertaken by the investor). Based on a possible reading of the government regulation dated 25 March 2014, No. 86 (which governs the review process),15 the government could exercise its special 12 In certain fields (such as gas and electricity), however, the law requires the operation of the network and provision of the related services to be carried out by the same company. It follows that, in practice, cases of acquisition of any such service providers will be subject to the government’s special powers outlined below. 13 In particular, the following strategic assets have been identified: a t  he energy networks of national interest and the underlying contract relationships (including the national network for the transport of natural gas, the related compression and dispatching centres and gas storage facilities; the infrastructures for the supply of gas from non-EU countries, and the onshore and offshore regasification plants; the national network for the transmission of electricity and the relevant control and dispatching centres; and the operations related to use of the above-mentioned networks and infrastructures); b l arge transport networks and facilities of national interest, which also ensure the main trans-European connections, including ports and airports of national interest and the rail network relevant to the trans-European rail networks; and c telecom networks and the public telecom network ensuring connection of end-users d  edicated to the metropolitan area telecom network, services routers, long-distance telecom networks, and the telecom facilities utilised to provide the universal telecom service to end-users, as well as broad and ultra-broadband services, and the related contractual relationships. 14 The 2014 Regulation clarifies that government powers may be exercised only insofar as the essential interests of the state (including a suitable infrastructural development) are not sufficiently protected by a specific sector regulation (including pursuant to a contract related to a specific administrative permit). 15 In particular, pursuant to Article 6, ‘the proposal to exercise the special powers under Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Law, is adopted vis à vis EEA and non-EEA persons, while the 171 . Italy powers under letter a) above (i.e., in respect of a relevant resolution adopted or a transaction carried out by an Italian company holding a strategic asset) regardless of the nationality of the investor, provided that such resolution or transaction results in a change of ownership or control of the strategic asset. By contrast, an investment in the share capital of the company holding the strategic asset would be subject to the government’s special powers only when the investor is a non-EEA person. However, this literal interpretation of the mentioned regulation would not appear consistent with the overall regime applicable to the field of energy, transport and communications – where the government’s intervention must be more limited in light of EU law principles – and would discriminate an investor acquiring a strategic asset vis à vis an investor acquiring a controlling interest in a company owning a strategic asset. iii Reciprocity Pursuant to a general principle of Italian law,16 foreign persons (whether individuals or entities) are allowed to exercise any civil law right exclusively insofar as the reciprocity principle is complied with. In other words, in the event that an Italian citizen is prevented from exercising a specific right in the country of origin of the relevant foreign person, Italian law in turn prevents that foreign person from exercising the same right in Italy.

Although the scope of this principle is very wide, in the context of foreign investments it seems to have been applied, in practice, exclusively to the purchase of real estate or the incorporation of a company, but not to the acquisition of an equity interest in a pre-existing company. The reciprocity principle is specifically restated in the Law, resulting in a significant limitation of the scope of the government’s powers: the purchase by a non-EEA person of an interest in a company exercising any strategic security activity or holding any strategic asset is permitted exclusively on the basis of reciprocity conditions. This implies that, in the event that the government ascertains that there is lack of reciprocity between Italy and the country of origin of the prospective investor, implementation of the transaction may not be permitted, regardless of any further consideration (including the economic desirability of such foreign investment and the absence of any significant prejudice to strategic interests).17 proposal to exercise the special powers under Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Law, is adopted only vis à vis non-EEA persons.’ 16 Article 16 of the General Provisions on Law, attached to the Civil Code of 1942. Among EEA Member States, however, the reciprocity principle is overridden by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on the European Economic Area, as well as by bilateral treaties (BITs) with non-EEA countries to which Italy is a party (for instance, the BIT between Italy and the US).

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains a list of the BITs currently in force between Italy and other countries, specifying in which cases reciprocity has been ascertained: www.esteri.it/mae/it/ministero/servizi/stranieri/elenco_paesi.html. 17 This provision can be contrasted with Article 25, paragraph 2 of the Italian Antitrust Act, pursuant to which the Prime Minister, on grounds of essential national economic reasons, may veto any concentration transaction notified to the Italian Antitrust Authority by a company from a country that does not protect the independence of companies through legal 172 . Italy Finally, a reciprocity principle also applies to takeover bids on Italian companies whose voting shares are listed on an Italian regulated exchange. Generally, the passivity rule18 and breakthrough rule19 apply to prevent pre-bid or post-bid defences from undermining the success of a tender offer. However, in the event that the bidder would not be subject to equivalent limitations, the target company (or its shareholders) may apply the relevant defences.20 In other words, should the foreign bidder, in its capacity as target of a tender offer, be permitted by its domestic law to frustrate a tender offer, the Italian target (or its shareholders) may apply any pre-bid or post-bid defence provided under the target’s by-laws or shareholders’ agreements. iv Sector-specific authorisations As previously mentioned, depending on the investment target, foreign investments may be subject to specific additional review or authorisation processes conducted by sector-specific regulators. The sectors where such obligations may be required include: a banking and investment services;21 provisions equivalent to the Italian Antitrust Act, or applies discriminatory rules or imposes conditions resulting in the same effects on acquisitions by Italian investors. 18 Pursuant to Article 104 of Legislative Decree No. 58 of 24 February 1998 (Italian Securities Act), from the date of announcement of a takeover bid, directors of the target may not adopt any measure that could undermine the achievement of the offer’s goals, unless authorised to do so by a shareholders’ meeting or empowered to do so under the target’s by-laws. 19 Pursuant to Article 104-bis of the Italian Securities Act, during the tender offer period any transfer restriction set out in the target’s by-laws, or voting limitations set out in the target’s by-laws or in a shareholders’ agreement, are not effective in relation to the bidder. 20 Article 104-ter of the Italian Securities Act.

Within 20 days of the bidder launching its tender offer, the bidder or the target company may ask CONSOB (the Italian securities and exchange authority) to determine whether the bidder would be subject to equivalent limitations. 21 Pursuant to (1) Directive 2013/36/EU of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms; (2) Directive 2004/39/EC of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (as amended by Directive 2007/44/EC of 5 September 2007 on the acquisition of shares); and (3) Directive 2009/138/ EC of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) as implemented in Italy by, respectively, (1) Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 385 of 1 September 1993 (Italian Banking Act), (2) Article 15 of the Italian Securities Act, and (3) Article 68 of Legislative Decree No. 209 of 7 September 2005 (Italian Insurance Act) and implementing regulations, a notification must be made to the competent authority (the Bank of Italy for banks and investment companies; IVASS for insurance or reinsurance companies) of any proposed acquisition of a share interest in a bank or an investment services firm that: a to at least 10 per cent of the target’s share capital; i s equal b enable the acquirer to exercise a significant influence on the target; or w  ould c control over the target. g  rants 173 .

Italy b c d e telecommunications;22 broadcasting;23 gas networks;24 and electricity networks.25 The competent authority shall authorise the acquisition after assessing certain factors, including the reputation and financial soundness of the investor, and the ability of the target, following the acquisition, to comply with its obligations under the applicable’s supervisory regime. 22 Pursuant to Article 25 of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 1 August 2003 (Code of Electronic Communications), the supply of the network or electronic communication services must be authorised in advance by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, which assesses whether the provider meets the necessary requirements. In the event that the authorised person intends to transfer such general authorisation to any third party (whether foreign or domestic), it must send prior notice to the Ministry, which may withdraw its authorisation in the event that it ascertains that the prospective transferee does not meet the necessary requirements. In addition, pursuant to Article 50-ter, paragraph 4, of the Code of Electronic Communications, in the event that the company designated to provide the universal telecom service intends to dispose of a substantial part or all of its local access network assets to a third party, it must inform the Communications Authority in advance to allow the Authority to assess the effects of the transaction on the provision of fixed access lines and telephone services.

As a result, the regulatory authority may impose, amend or withdraw specific obligations applicable to the designated company. 23 As a general rule, under Article 1, paragraph 6, letter (c), No. 13 of Law No. 249 of 31 July 1997, the Communications Authority is empowered to authorise the acquisition of a company performing radio-television broadcasting activities.

In particular, pursuant to Article 43 of Legislative Decree No. 177 of 31 July 2005, notification of concentration transactions must be made in advance to the Communications Authority, which ascertains whether such transaction may result in anti-competitive effects (including in respect of media pluralism). Such notification is additional to the obligation to give notification of the same transaction to the Italian Antitrust Authority or the European Commission in the event that it meets the relevant requirements (see footnote 5). 24 For example, pursuant to Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 93 of 1 June 2011 (which implements EU Directive 2009/73/EC in Italy), a gas transmission system operator (gTSO) must be certified by the Italian Energy Authority to be compliant with one of the ownership unbundling models envisaged thereunder.

While this provision applies to both Italian and foreign gTSOs, additional requirements apply in the event that the gTSO is not an EU national. Pursuant to Article 9 (implementing Article 11 of Directive 2009/73/EC), the Minister of Economic Development must set the criteria that apply to the above-mentioned certification when a non-EU person acquires control of the network. This decree, which has not yet been adopted, will ensure that the issuance of the certification does not jeopardise the security of energy procurement of Italy and the EU, or compliance with the international obligations. 25 Pursuant to Article 36 of Legislative Decree No. 93 of 1 June 2011 (which also implements EU Directive 2009/72 in Italy), the electricity transmission operator (currently, Terna SpA (eTSO)) must be certified by the Italian Energy Authority as compliant with the applicable ownership unbundling model envisaged thereunder.

While this provision applies to 174 . Italy Moreover, in certain fields the law sets limits on the acquisition of controlling interests by non-EU persons (for instance, as regards airline companies26 and television broadcasters27). III TYPICAL TRANSACTIONAL STRUCTURES Although no specific requirement is set under Italian law, typically, although not exclusively, foreign investments in Italy are carried out through an Italian or EEA corporate vehicle, depending on a number of factors (including tax considerations). In theory, investing through an Italian or EEA company might also be considered for the purposes of complying with the above-mentioned reciprocity principles or to fall outside the scope of the government’s review powers regarding strategic assets. However, if the ultimate foreign investor originates from a non-EEA country, such a structure may be insufficient in the event that the intermediate EEA company does not qualify as an EEA person for the purposes of the Law.28 Foreign investments may be implemented through the acquisition of an equity interest in an Italian target, either individually or through a corporate or contractual joint venture with an Italian or other person. Provisions of Italian company law may be relevant to certain agreements between the foreign investor and other shareholders or joint venture partners, such as limitations on the term of shareholders’ agreements29 or the obligation to launch a tender offer in cases of acquisition effected while acting in concert.30 26 27 28 29 30 both Italian and foreign companies intending to acquire the eTSO, in the event that this acquisition were to be carried out by a non-EU national, additional requirements would apply. In particular, Article 36 also requires that the Minister of Economic Development set out the criteria that apply to the above-mentioned certification in the event that a non-EU person acquires the control of Terna SpA.

This decree, which has not yet been adopted, will ensure that the issuance of certification does not jeopardise the security of energy procurement of Italy and the EU, or compliance with international obligations. Pursuant to Article 4 of EU Regulation No. 2407/1992, an EU airline company must be owned directly or through majority ownership by EU Member States or nationals of EU Member States, or both, and must at all times be effectively controlled by such states or nationals. Pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 249 of 31 July 1997, the authorisations relating to private radio-television broadcasting may be granted exclusively to Italian or EU persons, while non-EU persons may acquire control of such companies exclusively upon reciprocity conditions. See footnote 11. As a general rule, the term of a shareholders’ agreement relating to an Italian joint stock company (Article 2341-bis of the Italian Civil Code) may not exceed five years (three in the case of a listed company or its parent, pursuant to Article 123 of the Italian Securities Act). As a general rule, the acquisition of an equity interest in a listed company in excess of 25 per cent of the share capital (30 per cent in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises) triggers a mandatory tender offer.

The same applies in the event that such threshold is exceeded, in the aggregate, as a result of the acquisitions made by two or more persons who are parties to a shareholders’ agreement relating to the target company or its parent. 175 . Italy No notable difference is established between a share purchase and an asset purchase deal by a foreign investor. With specific regard to the scope of the foreign investments review under the Law, the definition of strategic security activities or strategic assets is wide enough to trigger the application of the relevant provisions both in cases of acquisition of an equity interest and in those of ownership of a relevant asset (although, as noted, in case of strategic assets, the regime would appear to be tighter in case the investor seeks to acquire the asset, as opposed to gaining the control of a company owning such asset). Likewise, the general reciprocity principle applies to both categories of transaction. IV REVIEW PROCEDURE Notification of foreign investments falling within the scope of the government’s special powers outlined in Section II, supra, must be made in advance to the government. The general rules of the review procedure are set forth in the Law, with implementing provisions spelled out in two government regulations, dated 19 February 2014 (relating to defence and national security) and 25 March 2014 (relating to energy, transport and communications) and in a subsequent Prime Minister decree dated 6 August 2014. i Process The Law requires that the following be filed31 with the government: a notification of any relevant resolutions adopted, or transactions carried out, by a company exercising any strategic security activity or holding any strategic asset within 10 days and in any event prior to their implementation;32 and b notification of any purchase of interests in any company exercising any strategic security activity or holding any strategic asset within 10 days of the acquisition.33 Purchases of equity interests in a listed company active in the fields of defence or national security trigger the notification obligation if they exceed the thresholds of 2, 3, 5, 10, 20 or 25 per cent. The notification of the resolutions or transactions must be made through ad hoc forms issued by the government34 and filed by means of certified e-mail. 31 32 33 34 The notice to the government does not trigger disclosure obligations concerning material non-public information under market abuse rules. The notification must include the minutes of the resolution and all documents provided to the members of the relevant corporate bodies, as well as any further information that may be necessary for the government to complete its assessment. The notification must include the business plan pursued by the investor through the proposed acquisition, the related financial plan, a detailed description of the investor, and any further information that may be necessary for the government to complete its assessment. The form was adopted by means of a Decree of the Secretary General of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers on 18 February 2015, and is available at: www.governo.it/Presidenza/ DICA/6_EVIDENZA/golden_power/DSG180215%20_modulistica_golden_power.pdf. 176 . Italy The review procedure is coordinated by the Department of Administrative Coordination (a specific government office),35 which is assisted by a coordination group composed of representatives of the ministries involved in the review procedure and, where necessary, members of other bodies (including private organisations) whose competence is required for a deeper understanding of the issues and interests. Upon receipt of the notification, a standstill period of 15 business days begins,36 during which the ministry in charge of the initial assessment carries out its review of the proposed investment or resolution and, taking into account the work of the coordination group, formulates a proposal to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (and a draft of the related government decree). The subsequent decree whereby the government exercises its special powers must specify the conditions or requirements imposed on the investor, the criteria and mechanics for monitoring compliance with the foregoing (including by identifying the specific administration) and the penalties applying in cases of infringements. Until completion of the review procedure, voting rights37 attached to the acquired interest are suspended. Moreover, during the review, no specific procedural standing or right of the parties involved in the transaction are expressly provided for by the Law (except for limiting the application of standard transparency rules to the proceedings).38 However, it is reasonable to expect that sound cooperation between the government and the notifying party may become standard practice, perhaps involving preliminary discussions prior to sending the formal notification, in order to allow the government to conduct its review properly and to make an informed decision by the statutory deadline.39 The first practical cases of 35 36 37 38 39 Said Department, following a meeting with the coordination group, assigns the review of the notification to a corresponding office within the Ministry of Economy, if the relevant company is controlled by such Ministry; otherwise, the process is entrusted to the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Economic Development or the Ministry of Infrastructures, depending on the specific circumstances (mainly depending on which Ministry is competent for the field the relevant company belongs in). This term may be extended only once for a period of 10 business days, in the event that the government requests additional information. Such rights are also suspended in the event that the purchaser does not comply with the conditions or commitments imposed by the government, and for as long as such failure to comply persists. In particular, pursuant to the general rule set forth in Law No. 241 of 7 August 1990, any person who holds a qualified interest in administrative proceedings can obtain access to and make copies of the administrative documentation. However, such general right to access does not apply with respect to the information and data contained in the documents filed in the context of the review procedure instrumental to the exercise of the government’s special powers under the Law. Likewise, no specific coordination is established between the government’s review and any other clearance process that may be required in respect of the same transaction (e.g., antitrust), therefore the parties must submit various applications in order for the transaction to be cleared. 177 . Italy notification under the Law indeed seem to suggest that such was the approach followed by the applicants.40 In any event, should the government elect not to (or should it fail to) exercise its powers by the end of the standstill period (which can be extended), the proposed transaction may be legitimately carried out.41 As previously mentioned, the government’s decisions must be adopted by a decree of the Prime Minister; the decree may be appealed only to the Administrative Court of Rome. In the event of non-compliance with the government’s decisions, the related transactions are null and void, and the perpetrators are subject to administrative fines equal to twice the value of the transactions.42 ii Criteria In an attempt to address the criticism expressed by the European Court of Justice in its 2009 judgment concerning the previous ‘golden share’ regime,43 the Law establishes certain specific objective criteria that the government must take into account as a condition to exercise its special powers. In particular, in the context of the foregoing review procedure, the government must assess, inter alia: a as regards companies exercising any strategic security activity, whether the economic, financial, technical and organisational characteristics of the 40 41 42 43 Based on the preamble of the Prime Minister Decree of 6 June 2013 – whereby the government exercised its special powers in relation to the acquisition by General Electric of the aero-engine business of Avio SpA – we understand that prior to the official notification by General Electric, dated 20 May 2013, the investor and the government had engaged in preliminary discussions documented by certain initial notices with which General Electric confirmed its availability to accept the conditions that the government would potentially impose on the completion of the acquisition. The Law empowers the government to determine which intra-group transactions are not subject to the possible exercise of special powers. Pursuant to the 2014 Decree and 2014 Regulation, certain intra-group transactions (such as mergers, demergers, divestitures, and the creation or transfer of security interests) are not subject to the special government powers. However, prior notification to the government of such intra-group transactions is required.

Further, the mentioned government measures provide that such exemption does not apply in the event that the available information indicates a threat of serious harm to the fundamental interests of defence and national security, to public interests relating to the security and functioning of the networks and facilities, or to continuity in procurements. The fine shall be at least 1 per cent of the turnover resulting from the latest financial statements. Case C-326/2007, Commission v. Italy. The Court held that the criteria (listed in the Prime Minister Decree of 10 June 2004) that the government was to consider prior to exercising its then ‘golden share’ powers (set out under Decree Law No.

332 of 31 May 1994) breached the EU proportionality principle, as ‘the Decree of 2004 contains no details of the actual circumstances in which the power of veto may be exercised, and the criteria it lays down are not, therefore, based on objective verifiable conditions’. 178 . Italy b c V prospective investor (including consideration of any financing conditions), as well as its business plan, are suitable to carry on the business regularly, safeguard its technological portfolios and honour existing contractual commitments; as regards companies holding any strategic asset, whether the situation resulting from the transaction (including consideration of any financing conditions) is suitable to guarantee the security and continuity of procurement, as well as the maintenance, safety and operations of the strategic asset; and in both cases, the existence of any links between the prospective investor and third countries that do not respect democracy and the rule of law, or maintain relations with criminal or terrorist organisations. FOREIGN INVESTOR PROTECTION Italy is a member of the European Union, and therefore subject to all provisions under EU law aimed at favouring the creation of a European common market, which include the four fundamental freedoms enjoyed by EU persons under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (i.e., the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons). Any breach of such principles by Italian law or the Italian authorities may therefore result in the EU investor’s accessing an Italian court to seek annulment of the infringing measure, redress of damages suffered in connection therewith, or both. Moreover, Italy is a signatory of the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Thus, since Italy is a party to a number of bilateral investment treaties, any dispute arising thereunder may be submitted to ICSID arbitration if such agreements so provide (or, alternatively, to other forms of dispute settlement provided for in the relevant treaty). Italy is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention, the purpose of which is to ensure that arbitration agreements are recognised in Italy (i.e., litigation before national courts is prevented if contrary to the parties’ agreement), and foreign arbitral awards are generally enforceable in Italy. Finally, in 201344 Italy introduced a specialised section within several major 45 courts focusing on business and corporate law matters. Such specialised sections have also been assigned jurisdiction over any civil proceedings to which a foreign company is a party (whether as a defendant or plaintiff). However, these specialised sections have no jurisdiction over disputes concerning the application of the Law, as the Administrative Court of Rome has exclusive jurisdiction. 44 45 Decree Law No.

145 of 23 December 2013, as ratified and amended by Law No. 9 of 21 February 2014. More precisely, these are the Courts of Bari, Cagliari, Catania, Genoa, Milan, Naples, Rome, Turin and Venice. Their jurisdiction over the specific case is established on a territorial basis. 179 .

Italy VI OTHER STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS Situations in which (certain) foreign investments entail the involvement of the government need to be carefully considered. The interests that the Law seeks to protect are obviously other than mere commercial interests that are generally addressed in a transaction between two private parties. In elaborating the acquisition strategy, this aspect needs to be borne in mind. The review structure set out under the Law envisages a particularly tight time frame within which the government is required to carry out its assessment. In some cases, it is likely that 15 business days will not be sufficient to enable the government to complete its appraisal.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the government may elect to suspend the transaction in the event that, upon the expiry of the review deadline, it has not completed its review or collected sufficient information to conclude that no prejudicial consequence may arise from the proposed transaction. As noted in Section IV, supra, should the government fail to exercise its rights within the statutory time frame, the relevant investment may indeed be legitimately implemented. In light of the above, as well as in consideration of standard practice, it seems advisable to approach the government informally prior to submitting an application triggering the start of the review procedure. Prior informal talks may help the government become acquainted with the proposed transaction and suggest possible amendments that would allow the transaction to be cleared swiftly. Such preliminary discussions may also form the context in which potential industrial commitments (regarding, for instance, maintenance of certain employment levels, location of research activities and respect for international obligations) may be defined and then proposed by the foreign investor within the framework of the proposed transaction, in order to preserve the interests underlying the exercise of the government special powers and facilitate final clearance of the investment. VII CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS The Law is a still a recent piece of legislation that, as far as we are aware, has been applied only twice since its enactment, while in certain other occasions the government disclosed its intention not to exercise its special powers thereunder. Notably, on 6 June 2013, the government46 exercised for the first time its special powers in the field of defence and national security, authorising the acquisition of the aviation business unit of Avio SpA by General Electric.

On this occasion, the government imposed certain conditions on the acquirer, including in connection with ensuring continuity of certain activities,47 the appointment of Italian citizens to certain sensitive 46 By Prime Minister Decree dated 6 June 6 2013 and published in the Italian Official Journal on 19 August 2013. 47 Mainly: a c  ompliance with national measures on security of procurements and information; 180 . Italy positions48 and certain industrial commitments.49 The government also provided the constitution of a joint committee (whose members are designated by the government and by General Electric) entrusted with the task of verifying whether the conditions imposed by the government are complied with. On 22 April 2014, the government exercised its special powers in the field of defence and national security by authorising the acquisition of control over Piaggio Aero Industries SpA by Mubadala Development Company.50 This authorisation was reported to be subject to certain conditions51 relating to the protection of technological and industrial competences, continuity in production and certain strategic activities (particularly in the field of remote control aircraft). Further, on 23 October 2014 the government declared52 that it would not exercise its special powers in relation to the reorganisation of the infrastructure investments of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti SpA (a State-controlled holding company), entailing the transfer of its share interest in Terna SpA (the Italian electricity grid operator) to CdP Reti Srl (a subsidiary of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti SpA which already held a controlling stake in Snam SpA, the gas transport infrastructure operator). Although no official comment was provided, presumably the government’s decision was based on the circumstance that the contribution would qualify as an intra-group transaction and therefore benefit from the statutory exemption from the application of the government’s powers. This corporate reorganisation was instrumental to the subsequent sale of a substantial minority interest in CdP Reti Srl to State Grid Europe Limited (a subsidiary of State Grid Corporation, a state-owned Chinese company). There is no public record that such subsequent transaction was notified to the government in accordance with the Law and that the government exercised its powers thereunder (possibly because it was concluded that the share disposal would not result in a change of control or ownership of the relevant strategic assets). Similarly, on 29 April 2015 the government confirmed that it would not exercise its special powers under the Law in relation to the disposal of up to 40 per cent of 48 49 50 51 52 b  ontinuity of production, maintenance and support to the navy and aerospace systems c supplied to the armed forces, and generally in order to ensure fulfilment of international cooperation programmes Italy participates in; and c  prohibition against reducing or disposing of technological or industrial know-how in a certain key strategic activities. Namely, the officers holding the authority to represent GE Avio Srl (the acquisition vehicle) on matters relating to security, and transfer and export of armaments.

In addition, the majority of the employees active in strategic operations (including international military cooperation programmes) must be Italian citizens. In particular relating to production and supply to the space business unit of Avio SpA of products or components for certain launchers. Press release available at http://governo.it/Governo/ConsiglioMinistri/dettaglio.asp?d=75448. Such conditions have not yet been disclosed in detail, as the government decree has not been published. Press release available at www.governo.it/Governo/ConsiglioMinistri/dettaglio.asp?d=76967. 181 . Italy the share capital of INWIT SpA (the company operating the wireless tower network of Telecom Italia SpA) by means of an IPO. The government explained that its analysis did not show any material issue relating to the envisaged transaction.53 Finally, in November 2013 the government announced its new plan to privatise certain state-controlled companies (including Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane SpA – the company controlling the Italian railway network operator), which may result in new significant cases where its special powers under the Law will be exercised. In particular, this expected development may provide helpful insights into the approach the government will take with regard to companies active in the fields of energy, transport and communications, in respect of which the government’s powers have only recently entered into force and have not been actually exercised to date.54 As outlined above, the government’s special powers in such fields are less extensive and subject to further constraints, mainly arising from compliance with existing EU laws. 53 54 Other cases in which the government concluded it would not exercise its special powers under the Law include (1) the merger of Aeroporto di Firenze SpA (the company operating the Florence airport) into Società Aeroporto Toscano (S.A.T.) Galileo Galilei SpA (the company operating the Pisa airport); (2) the acquisition of the telecommunication towers business of Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA by Abertis Infraestructures SA; and (3) the transfer of B-Max Srl’s know-how in the manufacturing of defence-related materials. In relation to each of such transaction, on 3 March 2015 the government confirmed that it would not exercise its special powers (press release available at www.governo.it/Governo/ConsiglioMinistri/dettaglio. asp?d=77997). As noted, the government declined to use its special powers in connection with the transactions involving CdP Reti Srl, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA, INWIT SpA, Aeroporto di Firenze SpA and Società Aeroporto Toscano (S.A.T.) Galileo Galilei SpA. 182 .

Appendix 1 ABOUT THE AUTHORS GIUSEPPE SCASSELLATI-SFORZOLINI Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini is a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, based in the Rome office. He is active in public and private mergers and acquisitions and capital markets transactions, corporate governance, securities and banking regulation, competition law and EU state aid law. He has worked on takeover bids, tender offers, negotiated acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures and private equity investments involving Italian companies, particularly in regulated sectors such as financial services, energy, media, telecoms and airlines. He has co-authored several publications on business law issues.

He graduated in law with honours from the University of Bologna in 1984 and obtained an LLM degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1987. Mr Scassellati-Sforzolini has been a member of the Bar in Italy since 1986 and a member of the New York Bar since 1988. He is admitted to practise before the Italian higher courts. He serves as a delegate of the Italian Bar to the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union. FRANCESCO IODICE Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Francesco Iodice is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, based in the London office.

Mr Iodice’s practice focuses on corporate and financial transactions, with particular regard to mergers and acquisitions, as well as financing, restructuring and insolvency matters. Mr Iodice graduated in law with honours from the University of Siena in 2007. In 2006 he obtained a diploma in legal studies from Worcester College, Oxford University, and in 2008 he graduated with distinction from St Catherine’s College, Oxford University, receiving an MJur, for which he was also awarded the Clifford Chance Prize for best overall performance.

Mr Iodice has been a member of the Milan Bar since 2010. 343 . About the Authors CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP Piazza di Spagna 15 00187 Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 695 221 Fax: +39 06 69 20 06 65 gscassellati@cgsh.com fiodice@cgsh.com www.cgsh.com 344 .