Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato

Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato

The swaps, including swap 6, are null and void under Article 30(7) TUF, a mandatory rule of Italian law applicable under Article 3(3) of the Rome Convention, because Dexia's forms did not state Prato's right of withdrawal. Only Prato may enforce this nullity, and it has done so in these proceedings. Dexia's main claim fails. There was no contravention of Italian local government finance law, and Prato's capacity and other local law defences fail. Further submissions are required on restitution and alternative claims.

Parties
Claimant: Dexia Crediop S.p.A.; Defendant: Comune di Prato
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (financial Services Contract) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Dexia's main claim dismissed; further directions to be given on counterclaims and alternative claims.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Rules Under Rome Convention, Capacity of Local Authorities, Derivatives and Swaps, Restitution, Misrepresentation, Illegality, Set Off, Consumer Protection
Conflict of Laws Financial Services Law Local Government Law Contract Law Mandatory Rules Under Rome Convention Capacity of Local Authorities Derivatives and Swaps Restitution +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexia Crediop S.p.A.

Claimant

Comune di Prato

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (financial Services Contract) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Italian mandatory rules under the Rome Convention apply to invalidate the swaps
  2. 2 Whether the swaps contravened Italian local government finance law
  3. 3 Whether the swaps contravened Italian financial services law (TUF)

Ratio Decidendi

The swaps, including swap 6, are null and void under Article 30(7) TUF, a mandatory rule of Italian law applicable under Article 3(3) of the Rome Convention, because Dexia's forms did not state Prato's right of withdrawal. Only Prato may enforce this nullity, and it has done so in these proceedings. Dexia's main claim fails. There was no contravention of Italian local government finance law, and Prato's capacity and other local law defences fail. Further submissions are required on restitution and alternative claims.

Court Disposition

Dexia's main claim dismissed; further directions to be given on counterclaims and alternative claims.

Orders

  • Dexia's claim for payment under swap 6 is dismissed.
  • Directions to be given for further submissions on Prato's restitutionary counterclaim and Dexia's alternative claims.