You are here

Print page

20. Provisions for risks and charges and contingent liabilities

 Guarantees givenRestructuringPenaltiesProduct guaranteesOther provisionsTotal
1 January 2015      
Current----9797
Non current1238--15146
 1238- - 112243
Allocations----205205
Uses(1)(1)--(68)(70)
Reversals-(5)---(5)
Other changes1---12
31 December 20151232- - 250375
Broken down as follows:      
Current----226226
Non-current1232--24149
 1232- - 250375
Effect from mergers/demergers191513801135431,206
Allocations1212739211299
Uses(2)(33)(64)(10)(189)(298)
Reversals--(19)(22)(102)(143)
Other changes(1)(9)(179)-78(111)
31 December 20161401321451207911,328
Broken down as follows:      
Current99471957297519
Non-current418512663494809
 1401321451207911,328

The “Other provisions for risks and charges” mainly include.

  • the provision for contractual risks and charges of €mil. 475, mainly related to the Aeronautics sector;
  • the provision for risks on equity investments of €mil. 56 (€mil. 170 at 31 December 2015), which mainly includes the accruals for losses exceeding the carrying amounts of the AgustaWestland SpA equity investment (for the changes in the provision for risks on equity investments reference is made to Note 9);
  • the provision for tax risks of €mil. 40 (€mil. 22 at 31 December 2015)
  • the provision for litigation with employees and former employees of €mil. 34 (€mil. 17 at 31 December 2015);
  • the provision for litigation underway of €mil. 6 (€mil. 4 at 31 December 2015).

With regard to risks, below is a summary of the criminal proceedings that are currently underway against Leonardo, as well as certain former directors and executives, concerning acts committed during the performance of their duties, with specific reference to the events that occurred in 2016 and in early 2017:

  • criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Rome against the former Commercial Director of Leonardo, for the crime under Articles110, 319, 319-bis, 320, 321 and 322-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, concerning the supply contracts signed in 2010 by AgustaWestland, Selex Sistemi Integrati and Telespazio Argentina with the Government of Panama. The proceedings are now in the trial phase. In relation to this case, criminal proceedings are also pending before the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rome against Leonardo S.p.A. for administrative violations pursuant to Article 25 of Legislative Decree 231/2001, for crimes under Articles 321 and 322-bis of the Italian Criminal Code attributed to the then Commercial Director of the Company, in the context of the abovementioned criminal proceeding;
  • criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Rome against one former executive, three former Directors and an executive of Leonardo, for crimes under Article 110 of the Italian Criminal Code and Article 5 of Legislative Decree 74/2000 in relation to the position as director held in the then Finmeccanica Finance SA, as well as against various employees and executives of the company, for the crime under Articles 110, 646 and 61 no.11 of the Italian Criminal Code in relation, inter alia, to personal loans requested to the company in the period 2008-2014;
  • with reference to the immediate trial before the Court of Busto Arsizio in relation to the supply of 12 AW 101 VIP/VVIP helicopters to the Indian Government, it should be noted that on 9 October 2014 the Court sentenced the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Leonardo S.p.a. (in relation to the position held in AgustaWestland) and the former Chief Executive Officer of AgustaWestland S.p.A. to a prison term of two years for having committed crimes under Article 2 of Legislative Decree 74/2000 (having submitted fraudulent tax returns using invoices or other documents from non-existent transactions) – limited to the May 2009 – June 2010 tax period, and ordering that the amount equivalent to such non-payment of taxes (on a taxable income of €mil. 3.4) be confiscated from AgustaWestland S.p.A., considered in determining the provisions for risks. In the same decision, the Court found the defendants not guilty of having committed the crimes under Articles 110, 112, paragraph 1, 319, 321 and 322-bis, paragraph 2(2) of the Italian Criminal Code (corruption of foreign public officials), due to lack of evidence. The decision is being appealed against.
    On 7 April 2016, the Milan Court of Appeal sentenced the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Leonardo to four years and six months of imprisonment, and the former Chief Executive Officer of AgustaWestland S.p.A. to four years of imprisonment, for crimes under Articles 110, 112, paragraph 1, 318, 321 and 322-bis, paragraph 2(2) of the Italian Criminal Code and Article 2 of Legislative Decree 74/2000. On 16 December 2016 the Supreme Court repealed the judgment appealed against and referred it to another division of the Milan Court of Appeal for consideration of new proceedings.
    In respect of these companies, it is recalled that on 25 July 2014, pursuant to Article 58 of Legislative Decree 231/2001, the Public Prosecutor dismissed the proceedings against Leonardo, holding groundless, following the conclusion of investigations, the Company’s involvement from both a factual and legal point of view. The Prosecutor also acknowledged that since 2003 the Company has adopted, actually implemented and regularly updated an Organisational, Management and Control Model that is conceptually suitable to prevent offences like the one in question and is also focused on compliance processes as to guarantee adequate standards of fairness and ethical conduct. In addition, on 28 August 2014 the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP, Giudice delle Indagini Preliminari) of the Court of Busto Arsizio – in granting the motions put forth by the companies – imposed administrative penalties pursuant to Article 63 of Legislative Decree 231/2001 and Article 444 and ff. of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, amounting to €80,000 for AgustaWestland S.p.A. and €300,000 for AgustaWestland Ltd, and ordered the confiscation of the equivalent of €mil. 7.5;
    The Indian Authorities also started their own criminal investigations in late February 2013 into this matter, which are still underway;
  • preliminary investigations are being conducted in relation to the criminal proceedings pending with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Busto Arsizio, against two former chief executive officers of AgustaWestland S.p.A., for crimes under Article 2 of Legislative Decree 74/2000, Articles 81 and 110 of the Italian Criminal Code and Articles 322-bis, 81 and 110 of the Italian Criminal Code, as well as against a former executive of the company, for crimes under Article 2 of Legislative Decree 74/2000 and Articles 81 and 110 of the Italian Criminal Code. In relation to this investigation, on 23 April 2015 some search warrants were executed at the Cascina Costa office of AgustaWestland S.p.A., in order to collect contract, accounting and non-accounting documents relating to the relationships maintained by AgustaWestland S.p.A. with some companies incorporated under Italian and foreign law. Within these proceedings, the notice of conclusion of the preliminary investigations was served in April 2016, limited to the offence under Article 2 of Legislative Decree 74/2000, against two former chief executive officers and a former executive of AgustaWestland S.p.A., regarding relationship with a foreign company. In the context of these proceedings, an executive of the company was also under investigation, but the proceedings against him have been subsequently dismissed;
  • criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Rome concerning the informal tender for awarding a contract in the ICT area for operational, contract management and procurement services launched by the Prime Minister’s Office in 2010 and awarded to a temporary business combine (RTI, Raggruppamento Temporaneo di Imprese) established by Selex Service Management and a company outside the Leonardo Group.
    On 1 July 2015 the Judge for Preliminary Hearings (GUP, Giudice dell’Udienza Preliminare) ordered the committal for trial of the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Leonardo, for crimes under Articles 81-paragraph 2, 110, 326, 353, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Italian Criminal Code, and of the former Chief Executive Officer of Selex Service Management for crimes under Articles 110, 319 and 321 of the Italian Criminal Code and Articles 81-paragraph 2, 110, 326, 353, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Italian Criminal Code, as well as of Selex Service Management itself for violations under Article 25 of Legislative Decree 231/2001. Leonardo brought a civil action as an aggrieved party. The proceedings are now in the trial phase.
    In relation to these proceedings, the former Chief Operations Officer of Selex Service Management and former External Relations Officer of Leonardo were also charged with crimes under Articles 81-paragraph 2, 110, 326, 353, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Italian Criminal Code. The former COO was acquitted and the former External Relations Officer of Leonardo was found guilty pursuant to Article 444 and ff. of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure;
  • criminal proceedings are being conducted by the Turin Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning the provision of helicopters to the armed forces, police and other government entities on the part of AgustaWestland, involving certain directors of Leonardo (serving from 1994 to 1998) and certain directors of AgustaWestland (serving from 1999 to 2014) with respect to crimes under Article 449 of the Italian Criminal Code for violation of the regulations on the use of asbestos;
  • criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Milan involving certain directors of the then-Breda Termomeccanica S.p.A., subsequently Ansaldo S.p.A., who served during the period from 1973 to 1985, charged with having committed the crimes under Article 589, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Article 40, paragraph 2, Article 41, paragraph 1, of the Italian Criminal Code, Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code and Article 590, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, of the Italian Criminal Code, for violation of the rules governing the prevention of occupational diseases.
    Leonardo, following service of civil summons issued by the Court at the request of the civil-action parties, entered appearance in the civil action. The proceedings are now in the trial phase;

Based upon the information gathered and the results of the analysis carried out so far, the Directors did not allocate any specific provisions beyond those indicated in the rest of the paragraph. Any negative developments - which cannot be foreseen, nor determined to date - arising from any internal investigations or judicial investigations being conducted, will be subject to consistent assessment for the purposes of provisions (if any).

With regard to the provisions for civil, tax and administrative disputes, it is underlined that the Leonardo’s operations regard industries and markets where many disputes, both as petitioner and plaintiff, are settled only after a considerable period of time, especially in cases where the customer is a government entity. Pursuant to the IFRSs, provisions have only been set aside for risks that are probable and for which the amount can be determined. No specific provisions have been set aside for certain disputes in which the Company is defendant as these disputes are reasonably expected to be settled, based on current knowledge, satisfactorily and without significantly impacting the Company. Of particular note are the following disputes:

  • the dispute in which Leonardo is defendant in relation to contractual commitments undertaken at the time of the transfer of the former subsidiary Finmilano S.p.A. to Banca di Roma (now UniCredit Group), arising from an assessment report issued to Finmilano S.p.A. by the Rome Direct Taxation Office, which disallowed the tax deductibility of the capital loss arising from the factoring without recourse of a receivable subject to deferred collection for an amount lower than its nominal amount. At present, after alternating outcomes in the various degrees of adjudication, which were mainly unfavourable for the Company and after numerous adjournments, we are waiting for the appeal to be discussed before the Supreme Court. Leonardo does not currently expect it will incur significant losses in this respect;
  • the litigation brought by Reid against Leonardo and Alenia Space (then ALS S.p.A., now SOGEPA S.p.A.) before the Court of Texas in 2001, whereby Reid claimed that the former Finmeccanica-Space Division failed to meet its obligations under the contract for the implementation of the Gorizont satellite programme. The dispute was settled in favour of the Group due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Court appealed to. On 11 May 2007, Reid served a compliant on Leonardo and SOGEPA, whereby it brought new proceedings before the Court of Chancery in Delaware. In the new proceedings Reid once again submitted the same claims for damages as those included in the papers of the previous case developed before the Court of Texas, without, however, quantifying the amount of the alleged damage.
    In appearing before the Court, Leonardo filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the case was time-barred, the statute of limitation had run out and the Court of Delaware did not have jurisdiction. On 27 March 2008, the Court issued an order which rejected the plaintiff’s claim as the case was time-barred. The opposite party challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of Delaware, which issued a decision on 9 April 2009, granting the motion and referring the case to the Court of Chancery for a decision on the other objection raised by Leonardo and SOGEPA concerning the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Delaware. Therefore, the discovery phase commenced, during which the witnesses requested by Reid were deposed. The preliminary investigations were completed in December 2013 and on 20 November 2014 the Court issued its decision on the question of jurisdiction, rejecting the objection raised by Leonardo and SOGEPA. Therefore, the case is proceeding on the merits and the discovery phase is currently underway. However, it should be noted that the proceedings are still being held which have been brought by Leonardo and SOGEPA in Italy, aimed at establishing the inexistence of the opposite party’s claims concerning the facts and requests argued by Mr Dennis Reid before the Court of Delaware. More specifically, the appellate proceedings are still pending before the Rome Court of Appeal and are in their initial phase;
  • the litigation brought before the Santa Maria Capua Vetere Court in February 2011 by G.M.R. S.p.A., as the sole shareholder of Firema Trasporti against Leonardo and AnsaldoBreda, was settled with a ruling stating the lack of jurisdiction in favour of the Court of Naples. On 28 April 2015 the suit was dismissed following the failure by GMR to reinstate the action in accordance with the time limits prescribed by law. On 23 June 2015, GMR then served a new writ of summons before the Court of Naples, whereby it once again submitted the same claims as those brought in the previous proceedings. More specifically, according to the plaintiff company, during the period in which Leonardo held an investment in Firema Trasporti (from 1993 to 2005), its management and coordination were carried out to the detriment of the company itself and in the sole interest of the Leonardo Group. Moreover, even after the sale of the investment by Leonardo, Firema Trasporti was allegedly de facto subjected to an abuse of economic dependence from the abovementioned Group in performing the various agreements existing with AnsaldoBreda. Leonardo and AnsaldoBreda appeared before the court requesting that, on the merits, the plaintiff’s claims be dismissed as clearly groundless, as a result of the non-fulfilment of any and all conditions required by law as requirements to bring an action against directors pursuant to Article 2497 of the Italian Civil Code. Moreover, the aforesaid companies also asked the Court to preliminarily hand down a ruling based on the principle of lis alibi pendens (i.e. the suit was pending elsewhere and then the claim was precluded) within these new proceedings with respect to the pending proceedings, between the same parties, before the Naples Court of Appeal. The proceedings described above are still underway and are still in a phase of preliminary discussion.
    It is also recalled that Giorgio and Gianfranco Fiore also brought a third-party action against Leonardo and AnsaldoBreda within the proceedings brought by Firema Trasporti under Extraordinary Administration before the Court of Naples, against the engineers themselves and a number of other defendants. By an order dated 18 November 2014, the Court of Naples declared that both the claims submitted by Giorgio and Gianfranco Fiore against Leonardo and AnsaldoBreda and those submitted by G.M.R. (the third-party that voluntarily intervened in the proceedings in question) were inadmissible; accordingly, the Court ordered that Leonardo, AnsaldoBreda and G.M.R. be dropped from action. On 2 March 2015 G.M.R. filed an appeal before the Naples Court of Appeal against this order. Leonardo and AnsaldoBreda formally entered appearance; at present the appellate proceedings are under the decision phase. While pending the aforesaid appellate proceedings, the judge responsible for preliminary investigations was replaced in the action brought by Firema before the Court of Naples; on 17 June 2015 the new judge reversed the previous ruling (with the related declarations of claim preclusion and removal from the lawsuit) and ordered the resumption of the discussion of the case, which is still underway.
  • the proceedings brought before the Court of Rome on 4 March 2013 by Mr Pio Maria Deiana, on his own account and in his capacity as Director of Janua Dei S.r.l. and of Società Progetto Cina S.r.l. against Leonardo in order to ask the Court to rule the invalidity of the settlement agreement signed in December 2000 by the aforesaid companies and the then-Ansaldo Industria (a company which was a subsidiary of Leonardo until 2004 and which is now cancelled from the Register of Companies). The aforementioned agreement had settled, by way of conciliation, the action brought before the Court of Genoa in 1998 in order to ask the Court to find Ansaldo Industria liable for breach of contract with regard to the agreements for commercial cooperation in the construction of a waste disposal and cogeneration plant in China, which then was not built.
    As stated by the plaintiffs in the writ of summons, the above-mentioned settlement agreement was concluded based on unfair conditions, thus taking advantage of the distress of Mr Deiana and of the economic dependence of the plaintiff companies with respect to Ansaldo Industria. The claim was submitted against Leonardo, invoking the latter’s general liability arising from the control exercised by it on Ansaldo Industria at the time of the events being disputed. The damages being sought, to be determined during the course of the proceedings, is estimated at €mil. 2,700. On 25 September 2013 Leonardo appeared before the Court, arguing, among other things, that it lacks the capacity to be sued and asking, on the merits, that the Court rejects the plaintiffs’ claims as they are entirely groundless in fact and in law. A minority shareholder of Società Progetto Cina S.r.l. and a minority shareholder of Janua Dei Italia S.r.l. intervened in the case, respectively, at the hearings of 14 May 2014 and 25 September 2014. The parties will be called upon to specify the conclusions that they intend to submit to the court during the next hearing to be held on 22 November 2017.