The directors of a credit company placed under extraordinary administration for serious irregularities learned that an employee had covertly given the company's former general manager some confidential company documents, which he had had no reason to access. The employee was subject to internal disciplinary proceedings and dismissed for a serious breach of the obligation of loyalty to her employer, but challenged her dismissal in court.
A recent Supreme Court of Cassation decision examined whether there were justified objective reasons for an employer to dismiss an employee following his refusal to reduce his hours in the wake of a company reorganisation to reduce labour costs and increase productivity. The court examined previous case law in this regard, reassessed the parameters of justified objective reasons for dismissal and set out the scope of judicial examinations of such a dismissal's legitimacy.
A client company recently sued a leading Italian bank, arguing that the interest rate swap contracts concluded between the parties should be declared null and void because, among other things, no master agreement had been executed and the contracts had allegedly been concluded in violation of the bank's general duties of correctness and delay. However, the bank rejected the claims based on the preliminary argument that the limitation period for taking action had already elapsed.
The Milan Court of Appeals recently rejected an appeal against a Milan Court of First Instance judgment concerning an interest rate swap derivative contract. The complainant had asked the first-instance court for a statement of nullity regarding the contract, claiming that its purpose could not be determined and that no adequate risk exposure information had been provided. However, the first-instance court confirmed existing case law and excluded any reason for nullity of the contract.