Da Bologna a Roma passando per Bizancio: i derivati in una recente pronuncia delle Sezioni Unite

• Francesco Caputo Nassetti ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Ferrara

     University of Ferrara

     Ferrara, Italia

     
• Localización: Rivista del diritto commerciale e del diritto generale delle obbligazioni, ISSN 0035-5887, Vol. 118, Nº. 3, 2020
• Idioma: italiano
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen
  • italiano

    1. La fattispecie. - 2. Le diverse nature dell'upfront. - 3. L'interest rate swap tra contratto di scambio e contratto differenziale. - 4. Della causa dello swap di pagamenti. - 5. Dell'alea bilaterale e dell'alea economica. - 6. Il mark-to-market non è elemento contrattuale di alcun contratto derivato. - 7. Il "par swap" non esiste. I costi impliciti. - 8. Non esiste un obbligo di fair price nei derivati. - 9. I contratti derivati non sono scommesse legalmente autorizzate. - 1 0 . L'art. 23, comma 5, T.u.f. - 11. Conclusioni.

  • English

    The article analyses the Supreme Court decision dated 12 May 2020 in relation to four interest rate swaps between an Italian Municipality and a bank. The Court states a questionable "regula iuris" which can bring havoc to the European financial community. In a nutshell a Municipality can validly execute an interest rate swap contract only if it is approved by the "Consiglio Comunale" since it constitutes an indebtedness. In addition, the Court states that the swap contract must contain the precise indication of the debt which is hedged by the derivative, the statistical and mathematical formulas used to measure the mark-to-market value and the probabilistic scenarios of the future interest rate level(!). Without such elements the contract is null and void. The "regula iuris" is not adeguately motivated as the Court both fails to understand the derivative instruments underlying principles and it ignores that the Italian law states that the interest rate swap does not constitute a debt. The disappointing decision could bring major negative effects to the financial markets. In fact, although the Court considered a derivative which does not exist, its decision creates a precedent which allows all the parties which paid more than received in an interest rate derivative contract to challenge it.