Despite the repeated assurances on the commitment to simplification and transparency, the Relaunch Decree offers a clear contradiction with these intentions. Article 26 creates a new financial vehicle, through new corporate networks, whose public nature brings back memories the inglorious story of the GEPI, the Company for Industrial Management and Holdings.
In fact, those with the oldest memory will remember that Gepi was born in 1971, following Law 184, which provided for the creation of a company to contribute to the maintenance and growth of employment levels compromised by transitory difficulties of industrial companies through interventions, on the basis of reorganization or reconversion plans, capable of proving the concrete possibility of the recovery of the companies themselves. Purposes not dissimilar to the provisions of article 26 of the Relaunch Decree. In fact, the Gepi was then created to avoid dispersing state interventions in a thousand streams, concentrating them in the GEPI itself. Like what is foreseen in article 26 with the establishment of the fund for SMEs.
In fact the Gepi (closed in 1991) it was a public finance company set up for the rescue, restructuring and subsequent sale of private companies in difficulty. It is said that GEPI cost the community huge sums by keeping redundancies from companies in crisis, such as FIAT, Montedison, SNIA, SIR, Marzotto, in layoffs. At the time, Gepi took charge of many tens of thousands of workers by transferring them to special companies that placed the workers themselves on layoffs for long periods. In the journalistic language of the time, the GEPI was described as a "lazzaretto", "resuscitation department", "ambulatory", “company junkyard”.
The provisions of article 26 of the Relaunch Decree have singular similarities with the history of the GEPI. In fact, said article (capital strengthening of medium-sized enterprises) establishes (paragraph 12) the SME equity fund, which will subscribe to newly issued bonds or debt securities hastily defined as "financial instruments", definition inconsistent with the definition of "financial instruments" contained in article 1, paragraph 47 of the Consolidated Law on Finance (Tuf) which excludes from the list of "financial instruments", objects of any possible negotiation, only "bank and postal deposits ”. It is hoped that when the decree is converted, the Chambers will clarify this definition. In summary, it is a question of having the Fund assume some debts (negotiable like any financial instrument?) of the medium-sized enterprises that request it.
It should be added that the management of the Fund is entrusted to the company Invitalia or to companies "entirely" controlled by it. So a new Spa with a board of directors, a board of statutory auditors and presumably some employees. Invitalia or any wholly owned subsidiary assumes the role of "Manager" (paragraph 13). He escapes the concept of "entirely controlled" (even through the well-known corporate cascades?). It is hoped, in order to avoid interpretative misunderstandings, that during the parliamentary approval reference will be made to the articles of the Civil Code (art.2359 et seq.) which govern the matter of corporate control.
But how many will actually be the Spa Managers, whose powers configure them as real hidden entrepreneurs of assisted enterprises? Currently, the subsidiaries of Invitalia are: Infratel Italia, Mediocredito Centrale, Italia Turismo and Invitalia Partecipazioni, and not all of them seem adequate to carry out the function of manager. Furthermore, Invitalia has a stake in Sgr Invitalia Ventures; the latter in turn should be the company to which the Government has entrusted the management of the billion euros to be dedicated to venture capital investments, a company in turn owned 70% by Cdp Equity and 30% by Invitalia Cdp Venture Capital sgr spa-National Innovation Fund (Fni).
It is appropriate to ask whether the venture capital instruments are included among the "financial instruments" mentioned above, creating singular financial interweaving in the case. It is expected that the parliamentary debate will shed light on this point as well, bringing the inglorious GEPI back into oblivion.
If Prof Cavazzutti didn't waste time with judgments as crass as idiotic we would be a lucky people.
In your "glorious" and multifaceted activity you distinguish yourself for having achieved a glorious zero in the best case and for having given baseless sentences for those who have not made a hundred but that zero point of response to the missions that the Governments deemed necessary gave it and did not certainly squandering resources.
Despite the few successes and numerous failures, the country's account had a positive balance for public finances, measuring costs and benefits for the state and contributed to the achievement of objectives in both the economic and social fields.
I avoid going into controversial details, thinking of poor Nino Andreatta.