Italy to tell EU terms for UniCredit's BPM bid remain despite deal collapse
UniCredit withdrew its offer for BPM on July 22, blaming government intervention for scuppering the 15 billion-euro ($17.3 billion) transaction.
Days earlier, the European Commission warned Italy that it could have breached EU rules by using its so-called golden powers aimed at shielding key assets to rein in UniCredit's takeover plans, giving Rome 20 working days to reply to its objections.
Italy will send a letter of reply to Brussels as early as this week which will invoke national security considerations for the use of the golden powers, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The European Commission was not immediately available for comment.
In the letter Italy will also say it has no plans to withdraw the decree that set the conditions for the collapsed deal, arguing that their legitimacy was largely upheld by an Italian court ruling this month, the sources added.
Among several conditions, Italy told UniCredit it had to halt activities in Russia, except for payments to Western companies, by early 2026, to prevent savings collected by Banco BPM from benefiting Moscow's economy as it continues its war against Ukraine.
The court ruling due to be referenced in the letter to Brussels axed some of the terms imposed by the government, but upheld the Russia-related conditions.
Italy also asked UniCredit to keep investments in Italian securities of BPM-owned fund manager Anima Holding, a provision that UniCredit said the court had made non-mandatory.
While the EU said corporate mergers should be vetted at the EU level to prevent member states taking unjustified measures in their regard, Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti argued national security was not for European institutions to judge.
Should the government fail to persuade the European Commission that its use of the golden power rules was justified, Brussels could adopt a decision ordering it to revoke the conditions.
Italy's use of its 'golden power' legislation is also under EU scrutiny in a separate process called EU Pilot.
($1 = 0.8672 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
EU-US deal won't really happen - the reason is in the details
Energy was one of the most freely traded goods in the post-Second World War era, even behind the Iron Curtain. A flood of sanctions has eroded that in recent years. But are the latest EU-US trade deal and Donald Trump's tariff threats an even greater danger? Under Thursday's trade pact, the EU has agreed to buy an extra $250 billion of US energy each year until 2027, and invest $600 billion in the US by 2028. Separately, Mr Trump has proposed 'secondary tariffs' on countries buying Russian oil, notably India. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told China that it would face 100 per cent tariffs if it continued to purchase Russian oil, for which it is the biggest customer. The reality of the European deal can be dismissed in detail. Impossible numbers The bloc imported $76 billion of American coal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil last year. The US exported $318 billion of energy to all its customers, and EU customers imported nearly $407 billion of energy from all suppliers. So, the US would have to divert all its energy exports to Europe, and Europe would in turn have to buy almost exclusively from America. Yes, US LNG exports are set to rise substantially. Here are some easy gains in energy trade for the EU. The last remnants of the old Russian gas empire will be swept away, as Brussels plans to end imports from its hostile neighbour by 2027. But prices are likely to fall as new supply comes online over the next five years, from Qatar, the UAE, Canada and elsewhere as well as the US. Japan and South Korea have also agreed to buy more American energy products. Meanwhile, the EU's bulk energy buys will probably keep falling, as renewables and electric vehicles meet more of its needs. 'Europe' does not buy energy – its companies and consumers do. There is no way for Brussels to redirect energy trade on the massive scale required to meet these commitments. Big chunks of the imports are from Norway, Algeria and Azerbaijan, tied into the EU by gas pipelines. These are not going to be diverted elsewhere, whatever the White House tries to dictate. Similarly, US companies decide whom to sell to on commercial, not political grounds. Here, admittedly, some combination of arm-twisting and subsidies might divert trade. But that is more likely to relate to large, visible, single inward investments such as Japan's reported interest in the $44 billion Alaska LNG project. One-trick trade pony European companies would invest in renewable, hydrogen and electric vehicle projects in the US – but these are undercut by the current administration's hostility. The withdrawal of tax incentives, increased barriers to receiving permits, and onerous rules on foreign content, make them unappealing. As Nippon Steel found out in its purchase of US Steel, sizeable foreign acquisitions of American companies are also likely to face unreasonable opposition and an opaque process of lobbying to win approval. The reliance on energy sales shows the US to be a one-trick trade pony – or at best, three tricks, including agricultural goods and weapons. Its other goods are not very competitive – gas-guzzling cars and planes that fall out of the sky – and will become even less so as tariffs drive up input costs for key materials such as aluminium, steel and copper. Ultimately, such trade commitments by Europe are not going to raise US oil and gas output. So, even if fulfilled, they just shuffle energy trade around. Sanctions could be a different matter. Mr Trump could execute his threat of 100 per cent tariffs against India and China if they persist in buying Russian oil. This is a bizarre approach to defeating Moscow's war against Ukraine, instead of imposing stronger sanctions on specific customers and shippers, which is the same approach used against Iran. Beijing will not back down; it cannot allow its economic model, its foreign policy, its alignment with Moscow, to be dictated by Washington. It buys about two million barrels per day of Russian oil. New Delhi might concede, though. It has not changed its policy yet, but Reuters reported that Indian oil refineries had paused purchases of Russian oil while matters are worked out. India's imports of Russian oil averaged 1.8 million barrels per day in the first half of this year. The third major customer, Turkey, takes about 250,000 barrels daily. If India and Turkey drop out, China would no doubt step up its purchases of Russian oil, but it would not take all the remainder. This is partly for logistical reasons, but also political. It would gain further leverage over its junior ally, and could extract generous discounts, as it does from Iran, where it is essentially the only customer. So, there would probably be an overall reduction in Russian oil exports. The gap would be filled by Opec+, depending on its policy decisions, and potentially by higher US output. But US oil production will only increase if prices rise substantially. Mr Trump has shown himself acutely sensitive to inflation and to the concerns of American drivers, preferring lower rather than higher prices, to the discomfort of his supporters in Texas. So how does this all tie together? Less Russian oil and gas means more room for Gulf suppliers. If they end up sending less to Europe to fill a gap in India, or if prices rise enough to boost American production, the US may then supply more to Europe, cosmetically satisfying part of the trade deal. The inconsistency and volatile, contradictory messages emanating from the White House make all this very hard to evaluate. There's a good chance that the impending 'secondary tariffs' never materialise. Yet what is clear that a free and liquid energy market is being replaced by a constrained and politicised one.
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
Goldman keeps Brent oil forecast, but flags downside risks to demand
Goldman Sachs on Sunday reiterated its oil price forecast with Brent averaging $64 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2025 and $56 in 2026, but expects an increasing range of risks to its baseline estimates from recent developments. "Increasing pressure on Russia and Iran sanctioned oil supply poses an upside risk to our price forecast, especially given the faster-than-expected normalization in spare capacity," the investment bank said in an August 3 note. However, Goldman flagged a downside risk to its 800,000 barrels per day average annual demand growth forecast in 2025-2026 due to the increase in U.S. tariff rates, threats of additional secondary tariffs and weak U.S. economic activity data. The weaker data "suggests that the U.S. economy is now growing at a below-potential pace", which the bank's economists' feel has increased the chance of a recession in the next 12 months, the note said. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies such as Russia, known as OPEC+, agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, the latest in a series of accelerated output hikes to regain market share. "While OPEC+ policy remains flexible, we assume OPEC+ will keep its production quota unchanged after September as we expect the pace of builds in OECD commercial stocks to accelerate and seasonal demand tailwinds to fade away," Goldman said. Brent crude futures were trading at $69.27 a barrel at 0115 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was at $66.96 a barrel. "We continue to see limited risk of large disruptions in Russia supply given the large volumes of Russian imports, the possibility for deepening price discounts to maintain demand, and continuing reported eagerness of the key buyers - China and India," analysts at Goldman Sachs said. Indian state refiners have stopped buying Russian oil in the past week as discounts narrowed this month and U.S. President Donald Trump warned countries not to purchase oil from Moscow, industry sources said.
Khaleej Times
16 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Opec+ makes another large oil output hike in market share push
Opec+ agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, the latest in a series of accelerated output hikes to regain market share, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. The move marks a full and early reversal of Opec+'s largest tranche of output cuts plus a separate increase in output for the UAE amounting to about 2.5 million bpd, or about 2.4 per cent of world demand. Eight Opec+ members held a brief virtual meeting, amid increasing US pressure on India to halt Russian oil purchases — part of Washington's efforts to bring Moscow to the negotiating table for a peace deal with Ukraine. President Donald Trump said he wants this by August 8. In a statement following the meeting, Opec+ cited a healthy economy and low stocks as reasons behind its decision. Oil prices have remained elevated even as Opec+ has raised output, with Brent crude closing near $70 a barrel on Friday, up from a 2025 low of near $58 in April, supported in part by rising seasonal demand. 'Given fairly strong oil prices at around $70, it does give Opec+ some confidence about market fundamentals,' said Amrita Sen, co-founder of Energy Aspects, adding that the market structure was also indicating tight stocks. The eight countries are scheduled to meet again on September 7, when they may consider reinstating another layer of output cuts totalling around 1.65 million bpd, two Opec+ sources said following Sunday's meeting. Those cuts are currently in place until the end of next year. Opec+ in full includes 10 non-Opec oil producing countries, most notably Russia and Kazakhstan. The group, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support oil prices. It reversed course this year in a bid to regain market share, spurred in part by calls from Trump for Opec to ramp up production. The eight began raising output in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger-than-planned hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July, 548,000 bpd in August and now 547,000 bpd for September. 'So far the market has been able to absorb very well those additional barrels also due to stockpiliing activity in China,' said Giovanni Staunovo of UBS. 'All eyes will now shift on the Trump decision on Russia this Friday.' As well as the voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from the eight members, Opec+ still has a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which also expires at the end of 2026. 'Opec+ has passed the first test,' said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy and a former Opec official, as it has fully reversed its largest cut without crashing prices. 'But the next task will be even harder: deciding if and when to unwind the remaining 1.66 million barrels, all while navigating geopolitical tension and preserving cohesion.'
