Legislative Update Archives - EURO LIT INSIGHTS

Italian Anticorruption Authority Publishes Draft Guidelines on Whistleblowing Internal Reporting Channels

by Fabio Cozzi and Giuseppe Tinello | Dec 5, 2024 | Legislative Update, Italy

On November 7, 2024, the Italian Anticorruption Authority (ANAC or the Authority) made available for a preliminary consultation the “Draft Guidelines on Whistleblowing Internal Reporting Channels” (the Draft Guidelines), aimed at providing additional clarifications as to the appropriate management of internal reporting channels under Decree No. 24/2023 (the Whistleblowing Decree). ANAC is now collecting comments and remarks from relevant stakeholders (to be provided by 9 December 2024), before finalizing and amending (where necessary) the Draft Guidelines.

The new Draft Guidelines are intended to update the guidelines originally published on July 12, 2023 with reference to external reporting channels. The main updates are as follows:

Detailed guidance is provided on the role attributed to trade unions and how to get them involved in the activating procedure of the new internal reporting channels, as requested by the Whistleblowing Decree. In particular, ANAC specifies that the involvement of trade unions is “purely informative” in nature, aimed at acquiring any comments on the implementation of the internal channel. The deadline given to trade unions to submit their comments is not peremptory in nature and the opinion expressed by the trade unions is not binding. ANAC also clarified that in companies where there are

Corporate Liability is Extended to New Predicate Crimes Under Italian Law

by Fabio Cozzi and Giuseppe Tinello | Aug 7, 2024 | Legislative Update, Italy

As it is widely known, Italian Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 (Decree 231) governs the liability of legal entities (including Italian subsidiaries of foreign companies) in case certain offenses (the Predicate Crimes) are committed in the interest or to the benefit of the entity by its directors, managers, representatives, or employees under their surveillance.

The legal entity might avoid liability under Decree 231 if, inter alia, (i) it has adopted, effectively implemented, and kept up to date an internal organisational, management and control model (the Model 231), and (ii) it has appointed a Supervisory Board (Organismo di Vigilanza) to monitor and ensure company’s compliance with the Model 231.

The adoption and implementation of a Model 231 is not mandatory under Italian law. However, failure to do so could expose a company to potential risk of liability if a Predicate Crime is committed in its interest or to its benefit, insofar the entity would not have the chance to demonstrate that a compliance system was set in order to prevent offenses of the type occurred (i.e., there was not an organizational fault).

The Italian legislator frequently modifies the list of Predicate Crimes (and/or the definitions of specific Predicate Crimes) for which a

UK General Election: Anti-PACCAR Bill Torpedoed

by Jack Thorne and Harry Denlegh-Maxwell | May 31, 2024 | Legislative Update, United Kingdom

In a previous blog post, we discussed the introduction to Parliament of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill (the Bill), which was designed to introduce legislation that would reverse the outcome of the UK Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others.[1]

As we previously set out, the ruling in PACCAR was set to have significant ramifications for litigation funders, claimants and claimant law firms in the UK that rely on third-party funding, potentially threatening the financial viability of swathes of the litigation funding industry. In PACCAR, the Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements that entitle funders to be paid a portion of any damages recovered (as opposed to a multiple of the investment made by the litigation funder) are “damages-based agreements”, as defined in the Courts and Legal Services Act, and are therefore unenforceable unless they comply with the relevant regulatory regime.

The Bill proposed amending s58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act, to insert a provision that “an agreement is not a damages-based agreement if or to the extent that it is a litigation funding agreement”. A litigation funding agreement

New Government Bill to Reverse Supreme Court’s Decision on Litigation Funding

by Jack Thorne, Briana Walley, Harry Denlegh-Maxwell and James Dobias | Mar 27, 2024 | Legislative Update, Regulatory/Compliance, Transportation & Logistics, United Kingdom

The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill was introduced to Parliament this week, following the UK government’s announcement earlier this month that it would introduce legislation that would reverse the outcome of the UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others.[1]

In PACCAR, a part of the well-known “Trucks” litigation in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that entitle funders to be paid a portion of any damages recovered (as opposed to a multiple of the investment made by the litigation funder) are “damages-based agreements” (DBAs), as defined in the Courts and Legal Services Act, and were therefore unenforceable unless they complied with the relevant regulatory regime (DBA Regulations 2013).

The ruling in PACCAR was set to have significant ramifications for litigation funders, claimants and claimant law firms in the UK which rely on third-party funding, potentially threatening the financial viability of swathes of the litigation funding industry. Typically, LFAs have been structured as the greater of a multiple of monies invested by the funder and a percentage of damages recovered. This percentage element is

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: