Industrial crises

Former Ilva, after sentence Flacks asks for criminal shield

The US fund sends a letter to the commissioners of the two extraordinary administrations asking for clarifications and assessing the impact of the Court of Milan's ruling

by Domenico Palmiotti

1 March 2026

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Flacks Group, the American fund that is negotiating the purchase of the entire ex-Ilva group, is not abandoning the negotiations, but wants to go deeper after the Milan court ruling. It speaks of 'significant impacts' and above all puts on the table the request for a criminal shield in order to move forward.

The position of the Americans is clarified in a five-page letter written by lawyers, signed by Michael Flacks, head of the fund, and sent to the commissioners of the two extraordinary administrations: Ilva (ownership) and Acciaierie d'Italia (plant operator). The ruling is the one issued on Thursday, which requires Ilva and Acciaierie d'Italia to adapt and reinforce, by 24 August, a series of prescriptions of the Integrated Environmental Authorisation issued by the Ministry of the Environment - prescriptions deemed ineffective by the judges for the protection of health and the environment - otherwise the hot steel plant's hot zone will have to stop.

The letter from Flacks' lawyers

On the ruling now Flacks writes that "any further initiatives and commitments related to the same, remain subordinate, among other things, to a thorough assessment of the implications arising from the decree issued by the Court of Milan, relating to the AIA 2025 and the so-called 'hot area' of the Taranto plant. In particular,' reads the letter, 'the precautionary measures contemplated are likely to have a significant impact on business continuity and, ultimately, on the overall sustainability of the company's business, as well as on the assumptions underlying the updated business plan and on the structure, timing and risk allocation of the transaction'.

Basically, after the ministers Adolfo Urso (Enterprise) and Marina Calderone (Labour), who spoke of a completely changed frame of reference - so much so that the company even suspended the discussion on the extension of the extraordinary redundancy fund for 4,450 group employees for one year - Flacks also came to the same conclusions.

The request for the criminal shield

But the novelty is the request for the criminal shield. "We recognise that the possible introduction of a "Criminal Shield" is outside the prerogatives and competences of the extraordinary commissioners," reads the missive. "That said, we believe it is appropriate to clarify that the introduction of an adequate form of protection at a penal level is, from our point of view, an essential prerequisite in order to proceed and represents a determining element to allow the Flacks Group and its representatives to operate with the necessary level of reliability and prospective visibility for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the industrial plan. While we understand that this cannot be ensured by the extraordinary commissioners, we believe it is essential that the issue be addressed in the relevant institutional venues as an integral part of the overall workflow of the operation".

For the former Ilva, in truth, a penalty shield had been instituted years ago, but then the Conte II government in 2019 abolished it, provoking the reaction of ArcelorMittal (then manager of the factory) which feared the cancellation of the contract. This then came back with a negotiation and the birth in 2021 of Acciaierie d'Italia with Mittal and Invitalia (majority and minority respectively) inside.

With Decree-Law 2/2023, the incumbent Government then reintroduced a shield for strategic companies, specifying that 'whoever acts in order to implement a provision authorising the continuation of the activity of an industrial establishment or part of an industrial establishment declared to be of national strategic interest, shall not be punishable for the acts resulting from compliance with the prescriptions dictated by the provision aimed at protecting the legal assets protected by the incriminating provisions, if he has acted in accordance with the same prescriptions'.

Thereafter, with decree 69/2023, the shield was also extended to decarbonisation measures in Taranto. However, this formulation of the shield is apparently considered limited by Flacks, which is now calling for its strengthening.

The Milan Court ruling

The lawyers for Ilva and Acciaierie are already at work to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal in Milan and in the coming days the document will be filed. The judges say that the Aia 2025 'introduces specifications or incorporates prescriptions in an essentially dilatory key that are illegitimate' and that 'the fact that the prescriptions do not indicate "a maximum term" within which the interventions must be "effectively" carried out, means "that their implementation is procrastinated until the expiry of the Aia".

Which, for the magistrates, contravenes the precautionary principle but also the ban on 'repeated extensions' introduced by the EU Court of Justice. In their defence, Ilva and AdI will argue that the AIA was not written by the companies, but by an investigative group formed by the local authorities and the region, coordinated by Mase and the supervisory bodies present. Moreover, all the monitoring indices at the public bodies attest that the former Ilva is within the limits of the law.