The controversial ‘Italian torpedo’ tactic, involving preemptive lawsuits in slow-moving Italian courts to delay disputes, is making a comeback after Brexit removed EU restrictions. Legal experts warn that new international agreements may intensify strategic litigation battles between UK and EU jurisdictions.
In a revealing exploration of litigation trends post-Brexit, the “Financial Times” has highlighted the resurgence of the term “Italian torpedo,” coined by Italian lawyer Mario Franzosi in 1997. This phrase describes a legal strategy where one party preemptively files a lawsuit in jurisdictions with sluggish court systems, such as Italy, to hinder an opponent’s legal action or compel them to negotiate a settlement.
Franzosi, now 91, continues to work in Milan and commented on the surprising resilience of this tactic despite the European Union’s attempts in recent years to regulate it. He noted, “You cannot choose the court of Milan because they know that they cannot be utilised to paralyse the system, but I can use another Italian slow-moving court and it works.”
Initially defined in the realm of intellectual property lawsuits, the “Italian torpedo” has since found wider application across various types of litigation, particularly financial derivatives. Richard Swallow, head of disputes at law firm Slaughter and May, emphasised the strategic importance of this tactic in cross-border litigation throughout the 1990s, stating, “The potential availability of the ‘Italian torpedo’… was a vitally important early strategic question.”
The legal landscape began shifting significantly when EU regulations tightened in 2012 and again in 2015, limiting the effectiveness of the “Italian torpedo.” However, following the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020, these restrictions no longer applied, effectively bringing the tactic back into play for litigators.
A notable example of contemporary “torpedo” litigation is the ongoing case involving the municipality of Pesaro against the former Italian bank Dexia, initiated in June 2021 over interest rate swap agreements. Although Dexia sought to resolve the matter through the English courts, proceedings in Pesaro remain unresolved, complicating enforcement of the English ruling.
Fellow Italian lawyer Danilo Ferri remarked on the consequences of Brexit, stating, “The panorama changed… but those agreements are still effective. The problem is born with that kind of transition.” Other cases echo similar dynamics, with disputes arising between banks and municipalities in Italy, often resulting in English courts siding with the banks.
The future of this litigation strategy looks poised for further complexity as, starting July 2025, the UK will sign the 2019 Hague Convention. This agreement facilitates mutual enforcement of court judgments between UK and EU member states, potentially intensifying efforts to secure favourable judgments promptly. Andrew Lodder, an English barrister, anticipates that even with the new convention in place, the incentive to initiate proceedings in Italy first will continue, noting, “There will still be a real incentive to get in first in Italy and then seek to delay or oppose recognition in the Italian courts.”
Additionally, litigation tactics have evolved in response to global events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading to the revival of the “anti-anti-suit injunction.” This strategy aims to preclude proceedings in foreign courts that should be adjudicated in England, reflecting the increasingly intricate nature of international litigation.
Franzosi, reflecting on his legacy, quipped about how his association with the “Italian torpedo” has become an intrinsic part of his identity: “When I introduce myself [to people] they answer: ‘I think I remember Franzosi — the ‘torpedo master’.” The discussion surrounding these legal strategies sheds light on the evolving landscape of litigation in post-Brexit Britain and the tools lawyers employ in the global arena.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.ft.com/content/35e639df-dd4c-4b09-9478-24b0e9384546 – This article from the Financial Times discusses the resurgence of the ‘Italian torpedo’ strategy in post-Brexit Britain, highlighting its origins and current applications in litigation.
- https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2016/an-a-to-z-of-cross-border-disputes-post-brexit – This resource provides an overview of cross-border disputes post-Brexit, including a section on the ‘Italian torpedo’ and its implications for jurisdictional issues.
- https://www.rpclegal.com/thinking/shipping-and-international-trade/enforcing-jurisdiction-agreements-in-the-eu-brussels-casts-out-abusive-litigation-tactics/ – This article examines how the Brussels Recast Regulation addresses abusive litigation tactics like the ‘Italian torpedo’ by enhancing the effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction agreements.
- https://www.oscola.org/post/the-effects-of-brexit-on-jurisdiction-clauses-1 – This piece discusses the impact of Brexit on jurisdiction clauses, noting that the protection offered by the Lugano Convention is less efficient than that under the Recast Brussels Regulation, particularly concerning the ‘Italian torpedo’.
- https://www.idiproject.com/news/italian-torpedo-and-new-eu-rules-lis-pendens/ – This article analyzes the ‘Italian torpedo’ and the new EU rules on lis pendens, highlighting changes introduced by the Brussels Recast Regulation to prevent such tactics.
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/choiceofcourt-agreements-the-italian-torpedo-and-the-recast-of-the-brussels-i-regulation/AF518699029DAED426723CBFC2A7C645 – This scholarly article examines the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation and its reforms designed to prevent the use of the ‘Italian torpedo’ to frustrate choice-of-court agreements.
- https://www.ft.com/content/35e639df-dd4c-4b09-9478-24b0e9384546 – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative references recent events, such as the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020, and upcoming legislation like the UK signing the 2019 Hague Convention in July 2025, indicating it is contemporary.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
Quotes from Mario Franzosi, Richard Swallow, Danilo Ferri, and Andrew Lodder are included, but their earliest known references could not be found online, suggesting these might be original or recent sources.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Financial Times, a well-established and reputable publication known for its thorough reporting and independence.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims about legal strategies and their evolution post-Brexit are plausible and align with known legal developments. Lack of specific evidence for some cases does not inherently imply implausibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative appears to be well-supported, with recent events and quotes from credible legal professionals. Its reliability is bolstered by being published in the Financial Times, a reputable source.
