![\"Mario](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/https:\/\/d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net\/production\/387e72e0-11f5-44cd-8f81-c18b14bbd9a9.jpg\")
Mario Franzosi first wrote about the \u2018Italian torpedo\u2019 nearly 30 years ago to describe a phenomenon he was observing in intellectual property lawsuits \u00a9 Alberto Bernasconi\/FT<\/p>\nWhen Italian lawyer Mario Franzosi coined the term \u201cItalian torpedo\u201d in 1997 he had no idea it would go on to define generations of litigation \u2014 or that it would come back to haunt post-Brexit Britain.<\/p>\n
The phrase refers to preemptively filing a lawsuit in a country such as Italy, whose courts are slow to resolve cases, in a bid to thwart an opponent\u2019s legal action or force them to settle. The practice, which was employed for decades by litigators, has seen a resurgence in the UK after it left the EU and lost the legal protections limiting the \u201cItalian torpedo\u201d. <\/p>\n
Speaking from his office in Milan, where he still works full time at the age of 91, Franzosi said the legal tactic has proven surprisingly resilient despite the EU clamping down on it over the past decade. <\/p>\n
\u201cYou 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,\u201d says Franzosi. \u201cLess than before, but it still works.\u201d<\/p>\n
Franzosi, an intellectual property (IP) specialist, first wrote about the \u201cItalian torpedo\u201d in the European Intellectual Property Review journal nearly 30 years ago to describe a phenomenon he was observing in IP lawsuits. <\/p>\n
Mario Franzosi first wrote about the \u2018Italian torpedo\u2019 nearly 30 years ago to describe a phenomenon he was observing in intellectual property lawsuits \u00a9 Alberto Bernasconi\/FT<\/p>\n
But the legal weapon was soon deployed in other areas of litigation such as financial derivatives.<\/p>\n
Richard Swallow, head of disputes at Slaughter and May, said that the \u201cpotential availability of the \u2018Italian torpedo\u2019\u2014 and whether to fire it or how to defend against it \u2014 was a vitally important early strategic question\u201d in big cross-border litigation from the 1990s until EU rules changed in 2012.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve spent enough time in Italian court rooms to know,\u201d Swallow said. <\/p>\n
EU regulations were further tightened in 2015, clamping down on the practice across the bloc. But after the UK left in 2020, those rules no longer applied. <\/p>\n
\u201cThat has brought the torpedo back into the litigator\u2019s tactical armoury,\u201d said Swallow.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Most current \u201ctorpedo\u201d cases involve Italian municipalities challenging banks over derivatives agreements entered into before the 2008 financial crisis. While some of the banks are also Italian, they have sought faster resolution in English courts, but they are sometimes unable to get those rulings enforced as long as cases are lingering in Italian courts. <\/p>\n
One of the first cases was brought by the municipality of Pesaro, a small Italian town on the Adriatic Coast, against former Italian bank Dexia, over interest rate swaps agreements entered into in 2003 and 2005.<\/p>\n
Pesaro started court proceedings in Italy in June 2021, seeking to unwind or set aside the transactions. Dexia issued counter proceedings in England four months later, based on the assertion the transactions were governed by English law. Pesaro said it would contest the jurisdiction \u2014 though it never went ahead with such a challenge. <\/p>\n
In 2022 Dexia won the English litigation. But proceedings in the court of Pesaro are still live and the bank is still trying to enforce the English judgment and have the Italian proceedings dismissed.<\/p>\n
\u201cWith the UK there are a lot of financial transactions, so there are so many contracts agreed in the past that provide for a jurisdiction clause,\u201d said Danilo Ferri, an Italian lawyer on secondment at Quinn Emanuel.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt some point the panorama changed with Brexit but those agreements are still effective. The problem is born with that kind of transition,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Other cases include a derivatives dispute between Patrimonio del Trentino, which manages the assets of the Province of Trento, and Dexia, where there were parallel proceedings in London and Rome. The English court again ruled in Dexia\u2019s favour last year.<\/p>\n
Similar disputes have been heard post-Brexit between banks and the city of Milan and the province of Brescia, with the English courts mostly ruling in favour of the banks. Whether these rulings have been enforced in Italy, however, varies.<\/p>\n
![\"Piazza](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/https:\/\/d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net\/production\/3096e38c-e256-4967-bf49-aaf99700b48b.jpg\")
Derivatives disputes have been heard post-Brexit between banks and the city of Milan and the province of Brescia \u00a9 David Noton\/Alamy <\/p>\n
The appetite to file claims in a favourable country and obtain a judgment as quickly as possible may only increase. From July 2025, the UK will be a signatory to the 2019 Hague Convention, which provides for the mutual enforcement of judgments between UK and EU member courts. This could see parties try even harder to secure a judgment first.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy expectation is that the Italian torpedo will live on after The Hague Convention,\u201d said Andrew Lodder, a top English barrister who has acted on a number of the Italian municipality disputes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the Italian proceedings are started first, then the recognition of the English judgment can be postponed until the Italian court has ruled,\u201d Lodder said. \u201cThere will still be a real incentive to get in first in Italy and then seek to delay or oppose recognition in the Italian courts.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tom Clark, a litigation partner at Freshfields in London, said another reason for the \u201cItalian torpedo\u201d were the \u201cperceived benefits of litigating in your home court\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat has long been a feature of complex international litigation and there\u2019s no reason why that wouldn\u2019t continue.\u201d<\/p>\n
FT series: Broken Justice![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/https:\/\/d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net\/production\/2312a500-47a5-4835-82ad-5ee52dc55406.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
This is the first article in a series on Europe\u2019s chronically underfunded justice system that risks undermining the rule of law and scaring off investors.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Part 1<\/strong> How Europe let its courts decay<\/a><\/p>\n