Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SPA & Anor v Comune Di Venezia [2022] EWHC 2586 (Comm) (14 October 2022)

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SPA & Anor v Comune Di Venezia [2022] EWHC 2586 (Comm) (14 October 2022)

The court held that Venice had capacity under Italian law to enter into the swap transactions and that the transactions were not rendered void or unenforceable by Italian mandatory rules. The transactions were valid and binding under English law. Venice's claims for restitution and breach of advisory duty failed. The banks' claims for damages also failed. The court dismissed all claims and counterclaims.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2586 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SpA; Claimant: Dexia Crediop SA; Defendant: Comune di Venezia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
All claims and counterclaims dismissed
Legal Topics
Interest Rate Swaps, Capacity of Public Authorities, Conflict of Laws—capacity, Mandatory Rules—rome Convention, Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Advisory Duties—banks, Misrepresentation, Limitation Periods
Banking and Finance Conflict of Laws Contract Public Law Interest Rate Swaps Capacity of Public Authorities Conflict of Laws—capacity Mandatory Rules—rome Convention +5 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banca Intesa Sanpaolo SpA

Claimant

Dexia Crediop SA

Claimant

Comune di Venezia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Venice had capacity under Italian law to enter into the swap transactions
  2. 2 Whether the transactions are void or unenforceable under Italian mandatory rules
  3. 3 Whether the transactions are valid and binding under English law

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Venice had capacity under Italian law to enter into the swap transactions and that the transactions were not rendered void or unenforceable by Italian mandatory rules. The transactions were valid and binding under English law. Venice's claims for restitution and breach of advisory duty failed. The banks' claims for damages also failed. The court dismissed all claims and counterclaims.

Court Disposition

All claims and counterclaims dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations sought by the Banks refused
  • Declarations sought by Venice refused