You are company of Caltagirone group presented a summons before the court of Rome to "complain about the discrepancy in information" disseminated by Monte dei Paschi for the investments in the bank made by these companies between 2006 and 2011. This is revealed by the 2022 draft financial statements of MPS published in view of the next meeting on 20 April, according to which Caltagirone would have requested a compensation for damages of 741 million euros, a figure corresponding to the presumed capital loss suffered on an investment of approximately 856 million.
According to Radiocor, the abundance of details and, above all, the circumstance that the group of the former vice president of the bank was the proponent of the summons, were not included in the prospectus (Registration document) of theMps capital increase of 2,5 billion released last October.
Caltagirone-Mps: here's what's happening
Francesco Gaetano Caltagirone he was vice president of Mps from April 2006 to January 2012 and it is precisely the impact on the investments in bank shares made by 6 group companies (Caltagirone Editore, Finced, Capitolium, Mantegna 87, Vianini Lavori and Fincal) in this period refer to the lawsuit and the maxi claim for damages of 741 million euros.
According to what the Sun 24 Hours, the six companies headed by Caltagirone turned to the Court of Rome "on the assumption that this damage is directly connected to the allegedly unlawful conduct put in place” by MPS as a result of the “diffusion of incorrect price sensitive information since 2006”. In other words, the bank allegedly disseminated incorrect information that gave an "untruthful representation of the parent company's financial situation" and on the basis of this "untruthful representation" the six companies allegedly purchased and kept the MPS securities in their portfolios.
In fact, the summons refers to the "difference in information disseminated on the market by the parent company in relation to investments in MPS shares made by the six companies" in the five-year period cited. In the same period the six companies would invested a total of 856 million euros to then resell everything in the first few months of 2012 "reporting a capital loss of approximately 741 million euros". The damage, they accuse, would therefore be closely connected "to the allegedly illegal conduct carried out" by MPS.
The documents of the capital increase
In the documentation to the public for the capital increase of MPS published more than two months after the notification of the lawsuit, reference is made only to a summons dated August 3, 2022 for an amount of 741 million "which takes up the arguments of certain out-of-court requests notified to the Bank (also for the purposes of interrupting the statute of limitations) in past years for an amount of 522 million". The prospectus of the increase he added, generically, that the writ of summons related "to the stream of information disseminated in the period 2008-2011".
Caltagirone at the time of his resignation from the board of directors, in January 2012, was still the second shareholder of the bank with 4,71% of the capital, shares held between 0,8 and 1 euro when the stock market price of the MPS share was equal to 0,3 ,XNUMX euros. As Radiocor points out, Caltagirone subsequently publicly justified the choice of divestment with the opportunity, which emerged at that juncture, to subscribe to the capital increase launched by Unicredit at the time and therefore to change 'horse'.
The financial chronicles of the period estimated a much smaller loss from the investment in Monte Paschi by the engineer Caltagirone compared to that declared in the summons received in Siena.
Banca Mps, consulted by the press agency, underlined that “the dispute is mentioned several times in the information prospectus. In particular, we note the passages on page 488 and 524 which provide extensive information regarding this dispute".
The precedent of the Mps Foundation
The lawsuit brought by the companies of the Caltagirone group is similar to that of MPS Foundation, which in recent years had sued the Sienese bank, asking for compensation for the damages suffered by the assets following the acquisition of Banca Antonveneta and the capital increases between 2011 and 2016, based – it was claimed – on incorrect information. The Foundation was asking for compensation of 3,8 billion euros, but following an agreement between the parties, the matter ended with an outlay for Mps of 150 million.