Fascicolo N. 11-12/2017

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

Pubblicata in internet all’indirizzo www.amministrativamente.com

Diretta da Gennaro Terracciano, Gabriella Mazzei

Direttore Responsabile Coordinamento Editoriale Marco Cardilli Luigi Ferrara, Giuseppe Egidio Iacovino, Carlo Rizzo, Francesco Rota, Valerio Sarcone

FASCICOLO N. 11-12/2017

estratto

Registrata nel registro della stampa del Tribunale di Roma al n. 16/2009 ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

Comitato scientifico Salvatore Bonfiglio, Gianfranco D'Alessio, Gianluca Gardini, Francesco Merloni, Giuseppe Palma, Angelo Piazza, Alessandra Pioggia, Antonio Uricchio, Vincenzo Caputi Jambrenghi, Annamaria An- giuli, Helene Puliat, J. Sánchez-Mesa Martínez, AndryMatilla Correa.

Comitato dei referee Gaetano Caputi, Marilena Rispoli, Luca Perfetti, Giuseppe Bettoni, Pier Paolo Forte, Ruggiero di Pace, Enrico Carloni, Stefano Gattamelata, Simonetta Pasqua, Guido Clemente di San Luca, Francesco Car- darelli, Anna Corrado, Fabrizio Cerioni, Gaetano Natullo, Paola Saracini, Mario Cerbone, Margherita Interlandi, Bruno Mercurio, Giuseppe Doria, Salvatore Villani.

Comitato dei Garanti Domenico Mutino, Mauro Orefice, Stefano Toschei, Giancarlo Laurini, Angelo Mari, Gerardo Ma- strandrea, Germana Panzironi, Maurizio Greco, Filippo Patroni Griffi, , Vincenzo Schioppa, Michel Sciascia, Raffaello Sestini, Leonardo Spagnoletti, Giuseppe Staglianò, Alfredo Storto, Alessandro To- massetti, Italo Volpe.

Comitato editoriale Laura Albano, Daniela Bolognino, Caterina Bova, Silvia Carosini, Sergio Contessa, Marco Coviello, Ambrogio De Siano, Fortunato Gambardella, Flavio Genghi, Concetta Giunta, Filippo Lacava, Mas- simo Pellingra, Stenio Salzano, Francesco Soluri, Marco Tartaglione, Stefania Terracciano.

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 2 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

The comparison of two project financing operations: the Line 5 of the Milan Metro and the London Tube. di Leonello Marraccini*

Summary

1. Introduction. - 2. Regulations on PPP. – 3. The London Tube. – 3.1. The project. – 3.2. Pro- ject Sponsors. – 3.2.1. The Tube Lines consortium. – 3.2.2. The Metronet consortium. – 3.3. The contracts. – 3.4. Costs. –3.5. Results. – 4. Line 5 of the Milan Metro. – 4.1. The project. – 4.2. Project Sponsors. – 4.2.1. Astaldi S. p. A. and Ferrovie dello Stato S. p. A. - 4.2.2.2. Torno In- ternazionale S. p. A. - Torno Global Contracting S. p. A. - 4.2.3. AnsaldoBreda S. p. A. and Hi- tachi Rail Italy S. p. A. - 4.2.4. Ansaldo Trasporti-Sistemi Ferroviari S. p. A. - 4.2.5. Alstom Ferroviaria S. p. A. - 4.2.6. Azienda Trasporti Milanesi S. p. A. (ATM) - 4.3. The DBOT contract and other contracts. – 4.4. Grants and fees. – 4.5. The financial structure. – 4.6. Results. – 5. Conclusions. - References. - Webliography.

* Dottore di Ricerca in Diritto Comparato e Processi di Integrazione alla Seconda Università di Napoli Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 3 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

Abstract

Project financing could be considered as a long-term credit scheme for big projects, such as infrastructure,where the granting of loans is completely based on the cashflow of the project. Recently, project financing has become an interesting subject to be analysed, both from a legal and economic point of view, because it could represent the best solution to involve private capital to finance public infrastructures, especially after the deep economic and financial crisis of 2008, which was particularly strong for Italy, already in a serious economic situation due to the heavy public debt. In fact, project financing, together with the other Public Private Partnership contracts, could represent a valid alternative capable of combining, on the one hand, public needs and, on the other, private resources. Nevertheless, there are still few infrastructures in Italy today built through this contract. This paper aims to analyse the reasons why project financing is less developed in Italy. So, in this essay will be analysed the risks that the public administration assumes in estab- lishing a relationship with the private sector, as well as the characteristics and potential of project finance. For this reason, it was considered necessary to compare the Italian project for Line 5 of the Milan Metro with a project of a flagship country in this type of operations: the London Tube in the UK.

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 4 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

1. Introduction ent approach, because of the collabora- Traditionally the Project Financing is de- tion between the public and the private scribed as “the financing of a given economic sector in the interest of the community entity, which is considered by the creditor as and no longer as part of the monopoly of its cash flow and revenue serves as the source the public sector. Project Financing could to pay the credit back, its assets being the col- be an alternative to stimulate the Italian lateral”.1 This operation could be consid- infrastructural development, without vio- ered as a meeting point of different legal lating the restrictions imposed on public and economic sectors, that is historically debt. used for building oil extractions plants However, the public administration must and infrastructures. be prepared to interact with private par- Project Financing was popular before the ties, because information asymmetry of- crisis of 2008, but after this financial ten leads to contracts that are not very meltdown it became even more im- transparent, with a strong imbalance in portant in some countries with a huge the distribution of risks and responsibili- public debt, as Italy, that has quickly en- ties. It is no doubt true that entrepreneurs tered in a deep economic recession, be- collaborate with the public administra- cause there was a lack of investment in tion in a project financing operation infrastructures and utilities, and Italian mainly to satisfy their own interest, fi- and European laws do not allow gov- nancing an initiative only if it is economi- ernments to invest. On the one hand, cally justified and if they will be able to therefore, it is necessary to promote stra- obtain profits through its management; tegic investments that stimulate the real therefore, the public administration is ex- economy, while on the other hand, poli- posed to the risk that the advantages of tics cannot allow massive public finance the private sector outweigh the public in- interventions. terest. Nowadays, these investments should be In a few words, through this method of paid through a special form of financing, long-term crediting it is possible to inau- involving the private sector. Thus, alt- gurate a new economic season for Italy, hough the Public Private Partnership but only if the public administration and (PPP) is not a completely new solution, it the action of politics are renewed, follow- has recently been examined with great in- ing the models adopted by other legal terest by politicians and entrepreneurs to systems, as the English one. encourage the involvement of private The UK's long tradition in the PPP sector capital in the financing of public infra- has shown that project finance can be use- structure. ful not only in financial terms, but also Through Project Financing is possible to from a managerial point of view, because build public infrastructures with a differ- the public administration uses the preparation and know-how of the private sec- 1 NEWITT P.K., Project financing, Bari, Laterza, 1987.

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 5 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo tor in the design, financing, construction distinction between the PPP for the reali- and management of the infrastructure. sation of the so-called "cold works" Hence, this paper aims to be a channel of (which do not generate cash flow) and knowledge and analysis of the character- "hot works" (which generate cash flow). It istics and capabilities of project finance, is also expressly written that the transfer referring to the legal and economic situa- of risk to the economic operator involves tions in Italy and the United Kingdom. the effective and substantial allocation to the private contractor not only of the risk 2. Regulations on PPP of construction, but also of availability2 or The PPP guidelines are set out in the demand3 for services, in relation to the Green Paper on public-private partner- period of management of the work. ships, in conformity with the principles of Art. 3, eee) of today's Italian Public Con- competition and equal treatment regulat- tracts Code regulates public-private part- ed by the Treaty and the EU directives on nership contracts, and affirms that these contracts and concessions. This document are contracts for consideration, through specified that a PPP contract had to have which one or more contracting authorities the following features: the long duration assign to one or more economic operators of the relationship; the financing of the a set of activities consisting in the con- project guaranteed in whole or in part by struction, transformation, maintenance the private sector; the strategic role of the and operational management of a work; private economic operators involved in in return, the private contractor obtains the project; the distribution of risks be- his availability, or the provision of a ser- tween the public and private partners, to vice related to the use of the project. be carried out on a case-by-case basis, de- However, in the United Kingdom there is pending on the ability of the parties to as- a lack of regulatory legislative discipline, sess, monitor and manage them. apart from the EU rules on procurement On the 19th of April 2016 the new Italian and sector-specific regulations that gov- Public Contracts Code (Legislative Decree ern the individual sectors4; the Standardi- 50 of 2016) became effective. This code once again regulated the public-private partnership contracts, intended as a form 2 Art. 3, letter bbb) of Legislative Decree no. lgs. No. 50 of 2016 establishes that the availability risk must be of synergy between public authorities covered by the private partner/dealer (ex art. 180, para- and private entrepreneurs, with the aim graph 3 of Legislative Decree no. 50). This risk is linked of financing, building or operating infra- to its ability to perform the services specified in the contract, both in terms of volume and quality standard. structure or providing public services. 3 Art. 3, letter ccc) of Legislative Decree No. 3, letter The operating revenue may come from ccc. No. 50 of 2016, specifies that the demand risk is rel- the fee paid by the granting authority, but ative to the different quantities of demand for the service that the private partner / licensee must bear (ex art. also from any other form of financial 180, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 50), includ- compensation, such as direct revenue ing the risk that there is no utility. from the operation of the service, with a 4 Such as the Finance Act 2003 (tax exemption for the PFI, which came into force on 1 December 2003), the Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 6 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo sation of PFI Contracts5 has standardized Finally, the Greater London Authority the PFI (Private Finance Initiative) con- Act 1999 was adopted, an act that estab- tracts, which are mandatory for PFI con- lished the Greater London Authority tracts with a capital value of £20 million (GLA), the entity called upon to adminis- or more.6 ter the Greater London districts, especial- There is no public contract code in the UK ly transport, police and first aid forces, legal system. Therefore, the discipline of culture, health and the environment.8 PFI and PPP is mainly based on a set of The public-private company Partnership "non statutory guidance", i. e. soft law United Kingdom was created in 2001 to acts, such as guidelines, practical notes interact with the public and private sec- and recommendations. tors, while the Major Project Authority of The Private Finance Initiative was set up 2007 analyses the larger and more sophis- by the UK government in 1992 to reduce ticated PPP projects.9 public spending. However, it was only Because of these policies, the PPP in the between 1996 and 2007 that the Local UK was a huge success and between 1990 Government Association set up an organ- and 2009, 67% of European PPP infra- isation, the Public Private Partnership structure projects were carried out in the Programme of 19967, with the aim of as- UK at a value of around €145 billion, sisting local authorities in implementing while in 2016 alone the total project capi- PFI projects. tal was £59.4 billion.10 In 1997 the PFI Task Force was set up, which is a government advisory organi- 3. The London Tube zation with the task of carrying out PFI 3.1. The project projects and studying new projects; in the The project financing operation for the same year, the Project Review Group was maintenance and renewal of the London set up at local level, chaired by the Treas- Tube is an excellent case study for analys- ury Ministry, which was called upon to ing and understanding the typical issues approve local PFI projects. of a project financing operation in the UK. In 2003, the Department of Transport School Companies Regulations 2002 and the Greater concluded three 30-year PPP contracts for London Authority Act 1999. the maintenance and renewal of trains, 5 The 2007 Standardisation of PFI Contracts 2007 is mandatory for all PFI contracts in England and Wales, except for projects with a capital value of less than £20 8 Chapter VII regulates the involvement of the private million. sector in the construction, renovation, maintenance and 6 There is also the Value for Money Assessment Guid- operation of railway and metro lines through PPP ance, a guide to evaluating the economic utility of a agreements. project. This guide was drafted by the Treasury Minis- 9 A new Operational Task Force was set up within the try in 2004 and then updated on developments in the United Kingdom Partnership in 2006 to provide advice PFI sector. and support to PFI projects, including through guides 7 Today it is replaced by Local Partnership, a joint ven- and manuals. ture between Partnership UK and Local Government 10 Data as of 31 March 2016; on the same date as 2015, Association, aimed at supporting local public authori- however, it was £57.7 billion. ties for public procurement. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 7 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo stations, tracks and signalling on the the best way to finance the maintenance Bakerloo, Central Victoria, Water- and renewal of the metro. The chosen fi- loo&City District, Hammersmith and nancial structure can be defined as hori- City, Metropolitan and East London, Ju- zontally split businesses, because opera- bilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines of the tions and infrastructure maintenance, re- London Tube, at the end of a five-year newal and upgrading are carried out by procedure costing £455 million, for a total separate businesses, with three private investment of £15.7 billion over 30 years, companies (Infracos) and one Public sec- of which £9.7 billion over the first seven tor operator (London Underground).1112 and a half years. Even though Transport for London had 3.2. The Project Sponsors proposed to finance the works also In this financial operation, London Un- through the issue of public sector bonds, derground is responsible for day-to-day the Government rejected the proposal be- management (including marketing and cause it strongly believed that private sec- ticketing) and security, while the three tor management was more likely to be ef- private infrastructure companies (Infra- fective than public sector contract man- cos) are responsible for the construction, agement, and that the additional costs of maintenance and renewal of infrastruc- this procedure would then be balanced ture. by the future benefits of a better risk con- At the end of the tender procedure, three trol. contracts were concluded with two dif- Indeed, it is true that a bond option ferent private partners. In fact, two PPP would have saved £ 90 million a year, be- contracts were concluded with the Met- cause the lower borrowing costs, but it is ronet consortium, composed of Metronet also true that this would have entirely left BCV and Metronet SSL, while the third the risk with the public administration. was concluded with the Tube Lines con- A key element in making an initial as- sortium. The public partner was London sessment of the PPP's value for money is Underground, whose ownership, in July the Public Sector Comparator exercise 2003, was transferred from the central (PSC), that could be defined as the as- government to Transport for London sessed cost of acquired the same service (TfL), directly connected to the Mayor of through ordinary procedures, in which London. Nevertheless, the Department of the public sector keeps a high level of Transport still granted £1 billion a year management responsibility and exposure for the operation. to risk. In this case, the London Under- ground estimated the costs to the public administration to procure independently 11 In addition to this solution, the government had con- the maintenance, renewal and updating sidered three other financial structures: a unified public of trains, stations, tracks and signals and sector company, a unified private sector company, sev- the Government agreed that the PPP was eral private companies vertically divided. 12 NAO, The Failure of Metronet, 2009, www.nao.org.uk. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 8 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

Tube Lines and Metronet had already In 2004, Jarvis sold its shareholding to been selected as the best bidders in May Amey, which is part of the Spanish com- 2001, although contracts were not con- pany Grupo Ferovial SA, which became cluded until December 2002 with the first the owner of two thirds of the share capi- bidder and March 2003 with the second tal, while the other third was owned by bidder. The bidders maintained a strong Bechtel. The corporate structure consisted negotiating position for more than a year mainly of a holding company, Tube Lines and a half, because the Department of (Holdings) Ltd, a main subsidiary (Tube Transport did not have another alterna- Lines Ltd) and a financing subsidiary tive. The Metronet consortium companies (Tube Lines Finance). carried out two thirds of the renovation work and, specifically, Metronet BCV was 3.2.2. The Metronet Consortium responsible for the Bakerloo, Central Vic- Just like Tube Lines, the Metronet Con- toria and Waterloo&City lines, while sortium was founded for public-private Metronet SSL was responsible for the Dis- partnership with the London Under- trict, Hammersmith and City, Metropoli- ground with the equal participation of tan and East London lines13, while the five companies, W. S. Atkins plc, Balfour Tube Lines consortium operated the Jubi- Beatty plc, Bombardier Inc. of Canada 315, lee, Northern and Piccadilly lines.14 Electricité de France S. A. 4 and Kemble Water Ltd16. 3.2.1. The Tube Lines consortium Metronet was composed of two compa- The Tube Lines consortium was founded nies, Metronet BCV and Metronet SSL. in the occasion of the London Under- Each company had one main subsidiary ground PPP project. Originally its share and one financing subsidiary, but in addi- capital was distributed between Jarvis tion there was also an intermediate non- JNP Limited (part of Jarvis), JNP Ven- commercial subsidiary which had only tures Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary one share of the financing subsidiary. Fol- of Amey UK Plc) and UIC Transport Lim- lowing a court order, from 18 July 2007 to ited (a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary 27 May 2008 the Metronet Consortium of Bechtel Enterprises Holdings Inc., was under special administration and USA). then purchased in 2008 by Transport for London. 13 Metronet had to renovate 150 stations by 2012, maintaining and managing 347 trains, 751 km of tracks, 155 3.2.3. The contracts stations, almost 200 km of tunnels, crossings and bridges. The contract stipulated that London Un- 14 With reference to the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly derground companies paid Infracos com- lines only, the works concerned signage and about 300 km of tracks, 251 trains, 100 stations, 2935 bridges and other structures, 227 escalators, 71 lifts. 15 These three companies are public companies. http://www.bechtel.com/projects/london-underground- upgrade/ 16 The last two companies were previously privatised public utilities that served the city of London. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 9 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo panies largely depending on the results legal, commercial and internal costs, such achieved. The total cost was estimated at as those incurred for corporate reorgani- £15.7 billion over 30 years, of which £9.7 sation operations before the PPP. Infracos billion over the first seven and a half companies believed that they could cover years. The operation was highly risky and the costs with the fees initially agreed in costly, so the Government agreed to in- the contract but, after lengthy negotia- crease from 90% to 95%, the amount tions, London Underground had to pay lenders of £3.8 billion of senior debt the same additional fees for the Infrastuc- would recover in the event of termina- ture Service. tion. Shareholders invested £ 725 million The costs incurred by all bidders, includ- and, if Infracos companies had met the ing non-winning bidders, amount to ap- performance targets, they would have proximately £275 million. The bidders' had to earn between 18 and 20% of the re- costs also include success fees to pay staff turn, a premium about 15% above the and other personnel who would other- risk free rate of return of 4,5% at deal wise have been used elsewhere. close. However, without counting the success Thus, the costs would have to be £ 50 mil- fee, Metronet was refunded £65 million, lion every seven and a half years for the while for Tubeline the refund was £95 Metronet Consortium, whereas for the million, £20 million more than the sum of Tube Lines Consortium these costs would the two contracts concluded with Metro- have to be £ 200 million for the first peri- net, and this was for various reasons as od and, then, £ 50 million.17 explained by the Department of Transport. 3.4. Costs Firstly, the costs incurred by Tube Lines Even if the Government agreed to repay were higher than those incurred by Me- 95% of the debt in the event of termina- trolines, because Tube Lines was the first tion, the rating agencies gave to the debt one that agrees on the principles of the a BBB grade18. Lenders considered the contract, while the two remaining con- PPP to be very risky and put higher inter- tracts with Metronet were based on the est rates than those imposed on loans to contract already concluded with Tube the public administration. Lines, reducing transaction costs on the The costs incurred by London Under- offers that could be taken over by the ground amount to £180 million, including other contract. In addition, there were different costs for pre-operational contract

17 These data do not include the risk of overloading activities and the business plan, which costs incurred to repair subsequent and unforeseen were £21.5 million for Tube Lines and on- damage, such as cracks or holes in the tunnel. ly £2.4 million for Metronet, because the 18 The reason for this is certainly the risk of the operation and, above all, the high possibility of disagree- former had to draw up supply contracts ments on funding by the local and central authorities, for subcontractors before the deal was as well as the uncertainties given by the periodic re- closed, whereas for Metronet this was not views scheduled every seven and a half years. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 10 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo necessary because it already had a supply Tube PPP is officially considered a fail- chain and contracts with suppliers. ure, probably due to the lack of coordination between London Underground and 3.5 Results the refurbishment and maintenance com- Most of the work was delivered in 2015, panies. but it is likely that Infracos companies However, the worst results are the eco- will not complete the work before the nomic-financial ones, because the private third review in 2026, the 22nd year after partners did not meet the deadlines and the conclusion of the deal. exceeded the estimated costs: thus, both In a PPP operation it is essential to have Metronet and Tube Lines were national- an excellent knowledge of the economic ised, the first in 2008 and the second in risks of construction, for which it is essen- 2010. tial to have a constant update on the pro- Metronet surpassed the predicted cost of gress of the works and the various chang- over £2 billion and went bankrupt in es. 2007, following the Greater London Au- Some parts, such as tunnel walls, are par- thority Act 1999 procedure. 95% of Met- ticularly expensive and often need to be ronet's debts were bought by the London maintained or renovated, which makes it Underground with the support of the impossible to determine the exact amount Department of Transport, which took of costs, since it is never possible to de- over a large part of the risk of bankruptcy termine clearly what the state of the in- by paying the huge sum of £1.7 billion. frastructure is. The main reason for Metronet's bank- A remedy for these problems could be to ruptcy was the inefficient management of provide a sort of register of operations, to the company, because most decisions had be periodically updated by inserting what to be taken unanimously by the five needs to be repaired or replaced. These shareholders, who were suppliers of Met- aspects were not properly planned in the ronet itself; secondly, the Board of Direc- London Tube PPP and soon London Un- tors changed frequently and never super- derground began to claim that the cost in- vised the work of the supplier- formations provided by Infracos compa- shareholders, who had great experience nies were often unclear, contradictory and had much more information on costs and inconsistent with what was stated than those available to the administra- during the offerings.19 Today, the London tion.20 This information gap made it impossible to supervise costs and perfor-

19 For example, Infracos companies, contrary to what mances. had been said during the tender evaluation phase, inte- The main reasons for the failure of the grated sums of money for sudden expenses into their project were, in the first place, the failure generic budgets and, therefore, it had become very difficult to know whether these resources had been used. For this reason, Tube Lines decided to provide the Arbi- ter with an account of how its general budgets had been 20 NAO, The Failure of Metronet, 2009, p. 6 spent. (https://www.nao.org.uk) Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 11 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo to include contractual clauses linking the (Objective 2001 Law). The Line, indeed, conclusion of the contract to the assess- crosses Milan from North to West, from ment of the solidity and credibility of the Bignami Parco Nord to the San Siro Sta- structure of the private parties' admin- dium, with an entirely underground istration, especially if they operate in the route, with automatic guidance system. project also as suppliers. This problem on 30 June 2003, the temporary associa- has become even more significant once tion of companies of Astaldi S. p. A., Tor- the Department of Transport has taken on no Internazionale S. p. A., AnsaldoBreda the risks because it could not have had S. p. A., Ansaldo Trasporti-Sistemi Ferro- any influence on the contract, since it was viari S. p. A., Alstom Ferroviaria S. p. A. not a contractual party. Consequently, the and Azienda Trasporti Milanesi S. p. A. supplier partners had excessive power (ATM, the public transport company and no real motivation to act in the inter- owned by the Municipality of Milan) est of the project. formally proposed the project for the con- A further factor that had a significant im- struction of the Garibaldi - Bignami sec- pact was the lack of coordination between tion. On 15 April 2005, the Municipality of London Underground, Transport for Milan published the tender for the final London and the Arbiter, who was sup- and executive design of the construction posed to detect and report on the perfor- and management of the Milan subway mance and cost issues of the transaction.21 line 5 won by the promoters on 17 May 2006, with a total cost of 503 million eu- 4. Line 5 of the Milan Metro. ro22. 4.1. The project The contract was signed on 16 June 2006 Line 5 of the Milan Metro represents one for a period of 31 years and 9 months. of the most important investments in The promoter consortium was replaced public infrastructure of Law N. 443/2001 by the special purpose vehicle Metro 5 S. p. A., which was composed of the same members of the promoter consortium and 21 The Greater London Authority Act 1999 established had to design, build and manage the pro- the Arbiter which has to provide advice or directions upon request from one or all contracting parties. In the ject, following the DBOT scheme23. present case, both functions were carried out at the re- On 23 November 2007 the construction of quest of Metronet, Tube Line and London Under- ground at the time when the first disputes arose. The the new line was contracted out to a tem- Act also gave the Arbiter the power to carry out inspec- porary business association consisting of tions and extraordinary or periodic audits, but the par- the Metro 5 shareholders through an EPC ties decided not to have it report on Metronet's performance in 2005. If the parties had acted differently, re- quiring the Arbiter to conduct the audit, Metronet's 22 CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI, Sistemi Urbani, Monza Metro- governance and cost issues would have been known in politana, Nuova linea metropolitana M5 da Garibaldi a advance. The Arbiter examined Metronet's financial Monza Bettola – Tratta Garibaldi-Bignami compresa va- and risk management only in 2006, i. e. three years after riante Stazione Garibaldi F.S., 2011, the PPP was concluded, and only then did he become http://www.camera.it/temiap/temi16/2011scheda[095]. aware of the excessive financial exposure. pdf 23 Design, build, operate and transfer. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 12 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo contract24. This contract provided that nérale, Portigon, BNL, Crédit Agricole, Astaldi S. p. A. and Torno Internazionale Unicredit, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, MPS S. p. A. would deal with the engineering and UB. part through a new company founded by Later, the second part of the line, namely them on 10 October 2007, Garbi Linea 5 S. the San Siro - Garibaldi section, was as- c. r. l., which replaced them in the con- signed by the public administration di- tract on 25 November 2007. rectly to Metro Lilla S. r. l. The previous The companies Ansaldo Breda S. p. A., concession was extended and reunited in- Ansaldo Trasporti-Sistemi Ferroviari S. p. to a single agreement signed on 22 De- A. and Alstom Ferroviaria S. p. A., on the cember 2014 between the Municipality of other hand, dealt with the technological Milan and Metro 5 S. p. A. and Metro 5 part of the project through the construc- Lilla S. r. l., which were respectively con- tion of automatic systems for train driv- cessionaires of the first and second sec- ing, signalling, the engineering system tion, with project sponsors in part differ- and rolling stock; ATM S. p. A. was re- ent from the initial ones. After the bank- sponsible for the management and ruptcy of Torno Internazionale S. p. A. in maintenance of the underground line for 2010, the other shareholders of M5 S. p. the entire duration of the concession. A. at the Shareholders' Meeting held on The financial contract was concluded on 28 February 2011 subscribed to the in- 12 December 2007 with the creditors Dex- crease in the share capital necessary to ia, Mediobanca, Societé Générale, Porti- continue the work, reducing Torno's gon, BNL, Crédit Agricole, Unicredit, shareholding, which will gradually exit Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, MPS and UB. from the company. Later, the second part of the line, namely In 2015, Hitachi Railway acquired from the San Siro - Garibaldi section, was as- Finmeccanica the business of Ansaldo- signed by the public administration di- Breda S. p. A. and the shareholding that rectly to Metro Lilla S. r. l., extending the Finmeccanica held in Ansaldo STS S. p. previous concession, and then recompos- A., 40% of the share capital. ing the two concessions into a single Finally, in 2017 the Astaldi group sold agreement signed on 22 December 2014 36.7% of M5 S. p. A. to Ferrovie dello between the Municipality of Milan and Stato Italiane, after the exam of the Anti- Metro 5 S. p. A. and Metro 5 Lilla S. r. l., trust Authority25. which were respectively concessionaires of the first and second sections, with pro- 4.2. Project Sponsors ject sponsors in part different from the 4.2.1. Astaldi S. p. A. and Ferrovie dello principle. The financial contract was con- Stato S. p. A. cluded on 12 December 2007 with the Astaldi S. p. A. can be considered the creditors Dexia, Mediobanca, Societé Gé- main Italian general contractor in the sec-

24 Engineering, Procurement and Construction contract. 25 Measure No 26598 of 4 May 2017. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 13 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo tor of infrastructures and civil and indus- With the acquisition of a large part of trial constructions. The Astaldi S. p. A. Astaldi S. p. A.'s shareholding, the FSI group is listed since 2002 in the Stock Ex- group became the first shareholder of change and it has recently participated in Metro 5 S. p. A. the construction of the Naples subway, Line C of the Rome underground, the 4.2.2. Torno Internazionale S. p. A. - Genoa suburban railway and the exten- Torno Global Contracting S. p. A. sion of the Milan subway (Line 2 from Torno was a leading construction indus- Romolo station to Famagosta station and try company specialized in transport in- Line 3 from Zadar station to Maciachini). frastructure and recently helped to build Astaldi holds a stake in Metro 5 S. p. A. as parts of the underground line in Milan, a project sponsor, since it originally Naples and Genoa. owned 23.3% of the shares, while subse- The company went bankrupt in 2010; its quently acquired the shares of Torno In- shares in Metro 5 S. p. A. (15.4 %) were ternazionale S. p. A., thus obtaining a gradually reduced and the other share- capital of 38.7%. In 2017 Astaldi sold holders subscribed to the capital increase. 36.7% of M5 S. p. A.26 to Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, maintaining only 2% of the 4.2.3. AnsaldoBreda S. p. A. and Hitachi special purpose vehicle. Rail Italy S. p. A. Ferrovie dello Stato S. p. A. is the holding This company is the most important pro- company of Ferrovie dello Stato S. p. A., ducer of mass transport vehicles; it has which operates mainly in the rail passen- recently supplied rolling stock for the ger and cargo transport sector, but also in construction of the Copenhagen metro road transport and the supply of logistics and participated in the construction of the services, as well as in the construction Brescia, Thessaloniki and Rome under- and management of railway infrastruc- ground. ture. In the past, AnsaldoBreda S. p. A. was This holding company, which is wholly 100% owned by the Italian company owned by the Italian Ministry of Econo- Finmeccanica S. p. A., but in 2015 the my and Finance, also controls the conces- business of AnsaldoBreda S. p. A. was sionaire for the management of the na- acquired by the company Hitachi Rail, tional railway network and the railway excluding some revamping activities and undertaking, the Reti Ferroviarie Italiane certain residual contracts, as well as the S. p. A. entire investment held by Finmeccanica in Ansaldo STS S. p. A., equal to 40% of its share capital. 26 Press release “Ferrovie dello Stato e Astaldi: firmato ac- Hitachi Rail Italy S. p. A. (part of the Jap- cordo per la cessione di M5”,, Rome, 12 December 2016. http://www.astaldi.com/it/comunicati-stampa/ferrovie- anese Hitachi group) can therefore be dello-stato-italiane-e-astaldi-firmato-accordo-la- considered a company born from the evo- cessione-di-m5

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 14 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo lution of AnsaldoBreda, which owns 7,3 in the construction of the Singapore and % of the shares in Metro 5 S. p. A. Lausanne metro.

4.2.4. Ansaldo Trasporti-Sistemi Ferro- 4.2.6. Azienda Trasporti Milanesi S. p. viari S. p. A. A. (ATM) Ansaldo Trasporti-Sistemi Ferroviari S. p. ATM is wholly owned by the Municipali- A. is controlled by Ansaldo STS S. p. A. ty of Milan and manages the public Group and is specialized in the design, transport service in the metropolitan area construction, installation, management and in 46 municipalities in the Province and maintenance of rail and underground of Milan. transport as a turnkey provider. Together with the extension of Line 2 This company has the competence of from Famagosta to Assago and Line 3 technological systems engineer/integrator from Maciachini to Comasina, the con- in the sector of turnkey rail and metro struction of Line 5 can be considered the transport systems and, in the project of most important of ATM's recent projects, Line 5 of the Milan Metro, has participat- since it holds 20% of the shares in Metro 5 ed since the beginning as a project spon- S. p. A. sor, with 24.6% of the shares of Metro 5 S. p. A.. 4.3. The DBOT contract and other con- Previously, Ansaldo had participated in tracts the construction of the metro system in On 14 June 2006, the Municipality of Mi- Dublin, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Thes- lan (the licensing authority) signed with saloniki, Genoa, Rome, Naples and Bre- the project company Metro 5 S. p. A. the scia. construction and management concession As mentioned above, in 2015 the compa- contract with a term of thirty-one years ny Hitachi Rail acquired the entire share- and nine months. With this agreement, holding that Finmeccanica held in Ansal- the company agrees to design, build, op- do STS S. p. A., equal to 40% of the share erate and maintain the new line, receiving capital. as payment the revenues from ticket sales. The management of the line lasts 4.2.5. Alstom Ferroviaria S. p. A. for twenty-seven years, while revenues Alstom is the Italian subsidiary of the from service are expected to be €724 mil- French multinational Alstom SA, which lion. operates in the energy and transport sec- The contract was only about the route tor providing turnkey rolling stock and from Bignami to Garibaldi Station, which signalling systems. is six kilometres long and has nine sta- This company participated in the con- tions. The overall estimated financing re- struction of Line 5 of the Milan under- quirement was initially estimated at EUR ground (owning 9,4% of the shares) and 502.2 million, of which EUR 190 million was covered by the concessionaire and

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 15 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo the financing banks, while the other part between Metro 5 S.p.A. and ATM for the was covered by a public contribution. operation of the line. Nevertheless, at the beginning of 2011, the Municipality of Milan signed a new 4.4. Grants and fees concession agreement with Metro 5 Lilla The project is also partly financed by spe- S. r. l. for an extension of another seven cial public funds, both from the State and kilometres (with ten more stations) of from the Municipality of Milan, both of Line 5 to the San Siro Stadium, financed which are paid to the concessionaire by in part by the Ministry of Infrastructure the granting authority. and Transport, in part by the Municipali- The State funds were paid by the grant- ty of Milan and, finally, by private indi- ing authority on the basis of a milestone viduals, for a total investment value of certification, no later than thirty days af- 872 million euros. ter having actually received them from The two concessions were merged into a the State, except for the right of the con- single agreement signed on 22 December cessionaire to ask for review of the busi- 2014 between the Municipality of Milan, ness plan if a delay in the payment of a Metro 5 S. p. A. and Metro 5 Lilla S. r. l., State grant caused a delayed payment of and they carried out a fusion by incorpo- the milestone certification. On the other ration: at the end of the construction pe- hand, the sums of the Municipality of Mi- riod, which is expected to last for fifty- lan had to be paid within sixty days of the seven months, Metro 5 S. p. A. will have presentation of the same certification. the management of the new section for The granting authority must pay an twenty-five years and seven months, with Availability Fee, six-monthly dues for op- expected revenues of more than 1,300 erating the line, for a predictable quantity million euro. of 22 million passengers, with a risk Line 5 is now considered to be the first threshold of 32% of the expected flow. major urban transport project in Italy. It is ATM is responsible for the provision of a project finance with impulse coming the service, maintenance of assets in use from the promoter, with a scheme called and assistance to customers (Operation DBOT (Design, Build, Operate and Trans- and Maintenance Contract - O&M). The fer), because after the concession of de- Municipality of Milan pays an operation sign, construction, supply and manage- fee based on a fixed fee derived from the ment of the project for a given period, its Economic and Financial Plan, with 2012 ownership is transferred to the granting base values subsequently indexed. public authority. So, the guaranteed traffic share is 68%, Among the other contracts, also notewor- with the commitment of the Municipality thy is the single construction contract to pay a fixed availability fee, not influ- signed between SPV and ATI of the con- enced by the number of passengers. structors and the unitary contract signed 4.5. The financial structure

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 16 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

The project was financed through a com- Milan for the extension of Line 5 of the bination of private financing, public sub- Milan underground to the San Siro Stadi- sidies and bank financing, but it must be um for €872 million; at the end of the con- pointed out that for the San Siro - Gari- struction period (57 months) the conces- baldi section it was only a bridge financ- sion holder would have managed the ing. new section for 25 years and 7 months, The public funding for the first and sec- with expected revenues of over €1,300 ond parts of the project consisted of mu- million. nicipal and state grants, while private fi- The San Siro - Garibaldi route was in- nancing consisted of equity capital (share stead subsidised by two bridge loans capital and subordinated shareholder signed in the first half of 2014 for a total loan) and bank financing facilities. amount of €100 million, guaranteed by The cost of the Bignami-Garibaldi section builders and sponsors, pending the struc- was initially planned at €495 million, of turing of the single financing for the en- which €183 million was charged to the tire Line. promoter, but in the agreement signed Thus, on 29 April 2015, the financial clos- between Metro 5 S. p. A. and the Munici- ing signed with Banca IMI, BBVA, BNP pality of Milan, the cost was updated to Paribas, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, Crédit €502.2 million, of which €190 million was Agricole, MPS, Naxitis, Société Générale, charged to the concessionaire and the fi- UBI and Unicredit was reached for the re- nancing banks, with expected revenues of financing and completion of the entire €724 million, but due to many project MM5 line for a total of 430 million euro, changes in 2010 the cost became €587 mil- maturing in 2035 for the long-term por- lion. For the first section, the first finan- tion. At the same time, the Convention of cial closing with credit institutions was 2014 became effective, through a fusion signed on 12 December 2007 for a total of by incorporation of the two companies 275,6 million euro between Metro 5 S. p. Metro 5 S. p. A. and Metro Lilla S. r. l. A. and the institutions Dexia, Medioban- The banks Aviva, Scor Infrastructure ca, Societé Générale, Portigon, BNL, Custody, Société Generale, Intesa SanPao- Crédit Agricole, Unicredit, Cassa Depositi lo Vita and UnipolSai have subscribed to e Prestiti, MPS and UBI. the institutional tranche for the issue of For the San Siro - Garibaldi section, the bonds for an amount of Euro 150 million, cost initially planned was 795.850 million maturing in 2035. euro, 391 million euro of which was allo- As a result, the total investment of the cated by the State, 83 million euro by the project, which amounted to more than Municipality of Milan, while a contribu- 1,500 million euro, was financed through tion of 321.85 million euro was to be pro- a hybrid structure with project financing vided by Metro 5 S. p. A. On 2 February and tranches of project bonds, equity of 2011, Metro 5 S.p.A. signed a new conces- the shareholders of Metro 5 S. p. A. and sion agreement with the Municipality of public grants.

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 17 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

54%, contrary to what was foreseen in the 4.6. Results original project, 40%29. The project for Line 5 of the Milan sub- Data confirm that 52.9% of the financing way, officially started on July 16,2007 for for the Bignami-Garibaldi section was the Bignami - Garibaldi section, was final- made up of public grants, 40.5% of the ly completed in November 201527 and is bank loan and 6.5% of equity; otherwise, now fully operational with over 100 thou- for the Garibaldi-San Siro section, 70.6% sand passengers per day. of the financing was provided by public The project, named "Transport Deal of the grants, 15.9% by bank financing and Year 2015" by Project Finance Interna- 13.5% by equity. In addition, the risk of tional28, is considered as a virtuous exam- demand was transferred to the public ple of PPP in the Italian public transport partner. infrastructure sector, which is attractive Furthermore, it is unusual that Astaldi for both the public and private sectors. has sold 36.7% of the shares in Metro 5 S. The project attracted lenders and inves- p. A. to Ferrovie dello Stato, because the tors because of the allocation of risk, pub- concessionaire thus became a company lic funding, mitigation of demand risk with a majority public shareholding and the presence of a promoter such as (36.7% FS and 20% ATM), in disagree- the Municipality of Milan. Line 5 is with- ment with the basic principles of proper out a doubt the most important financing project finance, which in theory should experience of an Italian urban transport have the aim of limiting the commitment infrastructure built through project fi- of public finance. nancing, because of a mixed financing A proper project financing should carry scheme consisting of bank credit lines out a project within a reasonable time and project bonds for institutional inves- frame and with a lower cost for the public tors. administration, compared to its construc- On the other hand, this paper is aimed at tion with a total public financing and pointing out that the project of Line 5 is with the assumption of all risks. On the an unusual project financing, because the contrary, in the case of Line MM5, the public sector took on the construction risk costs for the public sector have been and financed most of the project, almost higher than had been planned (also due to numerous variations) and the deadlines for the delivery of the sections have 27 On 10 February 2013, the seven stations between Big- not been respected30, with almost all the nami-Zara were opened and on 1 March 2014, the Isola and Garibaldi stations were opened. The entire line from Bignami Parco Nord to San Siro Stadio was opened on 29 April 2015, while the Portello and Cenisio 29 Legge Obiettivo 443/2001. stations were opened on 6 and 20 June 2015. The Jerusa- 30 The Bignami Garibaldi section was supposed to be lem station was opened on September 26,2015 and the completed in the summer of 2013 but was fully com- Monumental station on October 11,2015. The Tre Torri pleted on 1 March 2014, while the Garibaldi-San Siro station was finally opened on 14 November 2015. section had to be completed by April 2015, but was ful- 28 Published by Thomson Reuters. ly opened on 14 November 2015. www.comune.milano.it. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 18 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo risks of the operation covered by the pub- There have certainly been a series of im- lic administration. portant errors in the stipulation of con- The truth is that private investors do not tracts, in the assessment of economic con- often invest in Italian infrastructure pro- struction risks, in the monitoring of the jects and, in order to attract their interest, progress of works, in the coordination be- public administrations often combine tween the London Underground and the public and private financial resources in companies involved in renovation and an unbalanced way in project financing maintenance. operations. In addition, due to cost overruns and In addition, the Italian public administra- deadlines, it became indispensable to na- tion concludes PPP contracts with an un- tionalise Metronet and Tube Lines, by balanced allocation of risks caused by in- converting a promising PPP operation information asymmetry with the private to an ordinary in-house management. partner. Finally, the information gap between the A proper risk-sharing is the basis of a British public administration and the modern international project financing shareholder-suppliers was one of the operation, in which banks should have an main causes of bankruptcy, because pri- incentive to invest in infrastructure oper- vate partners had a great expertise in the ations still to be built, with medium and field, and the public administration was long term economic returns, characterised not able to monitor costs and works. by a clear legal and economic separation It would probably have been necessary to between the assets of the project company link the conclusion of the contract to the and those of individual shareholders. verification of the solidity and credibility of the company administration, especially 5. Conclusions of those who participated in the project Project finance is not a simple solution, also as suppliers. It would also have been but a complex structure, based both on necessary to deal differently with the financial evaluations and on precise and economic risk, which was too much for coherent political choices, aimed at at- the public administration. Finally, tracting the managerial, commercial and miscoordination between London Un- innovative skills of the private sector in derground, Transport for London and the design, financing, construction and Arbiter has become crucial to the failure management of public utility infrastruc- of London Tube's project financing. tures and services. The project for Line 5 of the Milan sub- In the case of the London Underground, way also showed a certain procedural bankruptcy was inevitable, although the and decision-making difficulties, which guarantees provided by the public part- has extended the time frame. ner were particularly high for UK project The relationship between the Italian pub- financing. lic administration and private partners has been very bureaucratic and compli-

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 19 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo cated, especially about the definition of knowledge, as well as a greater capacity design changes, which have been numer- for innovation and adaptation in the ous and have significantly increased event of unforeseen events and varia- costs. tions; moreover, the private partner of a It is true that in Italy, Line 5 can be con- project finance is certainly more stimulat- sidered an exceptional infrastructure, not ed to achieve the highest performance only for the two financial closing but also goals, reducing waste to a minimum, be- for the issuance of 150 million euro pro- cause the fees are perceived depending ject bonds. on the quality levels achieved. On the However, this project confirmed that in other hand, some experts are critical be- Italy banks are not willing to finance cause these operations could be consid- large infrastructure unless the public ad- ered a kind of privatization of services ministration provides strong guarantees. that until now have been considered pub- For these reasons, the project finance of lic. Line 5 of the Milan subway has been Moreover, the PFI often does not even structured in such a way as to encourage have a real economic benefit, as it often credit institutions, through very mitigat- happens that costs exceed initial esti- ed risks and the massive public contribu- mates due to variants, consultancy costs tions, which reach 70.6% for the San Siro - and, finally, interest rates imposed by Garibaldi section. banks for the credit of such transactions, Therefore, it is not surprising that the which are significantly higher than those project financing of the Line 5 involved that would be required from the public the banks, considering also that the risk sector. of demand had been entirely allocated to In a few words, project financing is the the granting authority, which had to pay best solution only when it is possible to a fixed availability fee. On the other hand, achieve better results than traditional al- the Milan project shows that there is an ternatives. information gap between the public ad- For this reason, the UK Treasury De- ministration and the private sector, which partment has published guidelines and inevitably leads to the conclusion of con- standard agreements to make it easier for tracts with an allocation of risk that bene- public administrations to assess which so- fits almost exclusively the private sector. lutions are the most cost-effective. The analysis shows that project financing The Italian legislator has instead inserted has positive and negative aspects. in the Legislative Decree. No. 50 of 2016, A first part of the literature and policy an innovative discipline aimed at improv- promotes this practice, highlighting the ing collaboration between public and pri- benefits that have often been gained in vate authorities. Art. 180 (Public-private balancing costs and benefits. partnership) and 181 (Procedures for It cannot be denied that the private sector awarding contracts) of the new Italian has a higher technical and economic Code of Procurement distinguish be-

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 20 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo tween the use of PPPs to carry out "cold" and restoration projects for which there is and "hot" works and definitively establish not enough competition on the market. that economic and financial equilibrium is the condition for the correct distribution of risks. Art. 165 of the Code, moreover, specifically refers to risk and financial equilibrium in concessions, clarifying that in such contracts the operating risk must be transferred to the concessionaire. The new regulation puts an end to a complicated period of the Italian public- private partnership, during which these contracts were too often used improperly, because the economic and operational risk was almost exclusively transferred to the public partner, as analysed also in the case study of Line M5 of the Milan Metro. Today it would not be possible to give rise to a project finance operation such as Line 5. It seems appropriate to conclude by summarizing the further problems of Ita- ly and the United Kingdom. The first is the monitoring of project finance operations by public authorities, possible only after careful selection and preparation of the public administration’s personnel. Secondly, legal systems must prevent private partners from acting incorrectly, as in the case of changes to projects after contracts have been concluded, which are often deliberately used to increase profits. Finally, it is difficult to conclude project financing contracts for projects with low capital value, because the costs of the tender are excessive. The same is true for operations that need to be changed and innovated frequently, and for renovation

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 21 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

REFERENCES

AMOROSINO S., I nodi critici della finanza di progetto in Italia, in G. Morbidelli (a cura di), Finanza di progetto, Torino, Giappichelli, 2004.

CAPUNZO R., Argomenti di diritto pubblico dell’economia, Milano, Giuffrè, 2010.

CAPUTO NASSETTI F., Valutazione e predisposizione del piano economico finanziario: l’asseverazione bancaria e le re- sponsabilità connesse all’asseverazione, in G. Morbidelli (a cura di), Finanza di progetto, Torino, Giappichelli, 2004.

CARTEI G. F. – RICCHI M., Finanza di progetto e partenariato pubblico-privato, temi europei, istituti nazionali e opera- tività, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica, 2015.

CASELLA F., Il project financing nel Regno Unito in Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo (2005-4).

CELIO M., L’impatto della nuova normativa sulla finanza di progetto el mercato del PPP in Italia, in G. F. CARTEI – M. RICCHI (a cura di), Finanza di progetto: temi e prospettive, Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2010.

CERRINA FERONI G., Il partenariato pubblico-privato nelle esperienze del Regno Unito e della Germania in Id. (a cura di), Il partenariato pubblico-privato: modelli e strumenti, Torino, Giappichelli, 2011.

CERRINA FERONI G., Il project financing in Italia, in Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo (2005-4).

CHITI M. P. (a cura di), Il partenariato pubblico-privato. Concessioni Finanza di Progetto Società miste Fondazioni, Napoli, Editoriale Scientifica, 2009.

FABI F. –LOIERO R. –PROFITI F. S. E., Il partenariato pubblico-privato nell’ordinamento giuridico nazionale, comuni- tario ed internazionale, Roma, Dike Giuridica Editrice, 2015.

FIDONE G. – RAGANELLI B., Il partenariato pubblico privato e la finanza di progetto, in Commentario al codice dei conratti pubblici, Torino, Giappichelli, 2010.

FOLLIS M., Torno in uscita dalla Metro 5 di Milano, in MF-Il quotidiano dei mercati finanziari del 26 aprile 2011, Class Editori.

GATTI S. – MAURO S., Milan Metro Line 5, in Project Financing in Theory and Practice, Sec. Ed., London, Else- vier Academic Press, 2013.

GATTI S., Project Finance in Theory and Practice, Academic Press, London, 2013.

GIURDANELLA C., Diritto degli Appalti Pubblici Aggiornato alle novità del nuovo codice appalti 2016, Cesda, Roma, 2016.

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 22 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

MARRACCINI L., Il Project Financing in Italia e nel Regno Unito, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Diritto Compa- rato e Processi di Integrazione, XXX° ciclo, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” - Di- partimento di Scienze Politiche “Jean Monnet”, Caserta, 2017.

MESSINA P., I contratti bancari e finanziari, Torino, Giappichelli, 2013.

MOCCIA L., Comparazione giuridica e Diritto europeo, Milano, Giuffrè, 2005;

MORBIDELLI G., Il project financing: considerazioni introduttive, in Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo (2005-4).

MORBIDELLI G., Verso una normativa sul finanziamento privato di opere pubbliche, in U. GORI (cur.), Il Project Fi- nancing, Bologna, DSE, 1999.

MORI P. A., Il Partenariato Pubblico-Privato e la realizzazione delle infrastrutture, in G. F. CARTEI – M. RICCHI (a cura di), Finanza di progetto e partenariato pubblico-privato, temi europei, istituti nazionali e operatività, Napoli, Edito- riale Scientifica, 2015.

NEWITT P.K., Project financing, Bari, Laterza, 1987.

ORUCU E. – NELKEN D. (a cura di), Comparative Law, a Handbook, London, Hart Publishing, 2007.

RAVI C. TENNEKOON, The law and regulation of International Finance, Bloomsbury Professional, London, 1991.

RICCHI M., Project Financing e Floating Charge in Riv. Economia e Diritto del Terziario, Finanza di Progetto problemi e prospettive, Francoangeli, 2005, n. 1.

SAMBRI S.M., Project financing, la finanza di progetto per la realizzazione di opere pubbliche, in Trattato di diritto dell’economica, diretto da E. Picozza e E. Gabrielli, Padova, CEDAM, 2013.

SARTORI A., I project bond in Italia: problemi e prospettive, Centro di Ricerche in analisi economica e sviluppo economico internazionale – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, 2013.

SARTORI E., Il Project financing e la segregazione patrimoniale. Profili economico-aziendali, Tesi di dottorato di Ricer- ca in Economia e Tecnica della Finanza di Progetto, XX Ciclo – Facoltà di Economia, Università LUISS Guido Carli, Roma.

SIEMS M., Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

SPACKMAN M., Public-Private Partnerships: lessons from the British approach, in Economic Systems, vol. 26, Septem- ber 2002. SUR S., Sur l’obligation de motiver les actes adminiustratifs, in A.J.D.A., 1974.

TARTAGLIA A., Servizi e opere di Interesse strategico per la collettività, in R. BOLICI, M. GAMBARO, A. TARTAGLIA (a cura di), La ricerca tra innovazione, creatività e progetto, Firenze University Press, Firenze, 2012.

VACCA A. – SOLUSTRI C., Il project financing per le opere pubbliche, Pozzuoli, Sistemi Editoriali, 2003. Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 23 di 27 www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

VACCÀ C., Il project financing. Soggetti, disciplina, contratti, Milano, Egea, 2002.

VARRONE C., Alcune considerazioni in tema di project financing, in G. Morbidelli (a cura di), Finanza di progetto, Torino, Giappichelli, 2004.

VINTER G. D., Project Finance, A legal guide, II edizione, Londra, 1998.

VIRGILIO R., Finanza di progetto nel sistema di realizzazione dei lavori pubblici, in G. MORBIDELLI (a cura di), Fi- nanza di progetto, Torino, Giappichelli, 2004.

ZACCHEO M., Le società di progetto, in G. Morbidelli (a cura di), Finanza di progetto, Torino, Giappichelli, 2004.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

ALLEN&OVERY, Standardisation of PF2 Contracts (5) – Another New(ish) approach to public – private partnerships, January 2013, http://www.allenovery.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Standardisation%20of%20PF2%20Contracts.pdf

CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI, La Linea Metropolitana M5 da Garibaldi a San Siro, http://www.camera.it/temiap/temi16/2011scheda[089].pdf

CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI, Sistemi Urbani, Monza Metropolitana, Nuova linea metropolitana M5 da Garibaldi a Monza Bettola – Tratta Garibaldi-Bignami compresa variante Stazione Garibaldi F.S., 2011, http://www.camera.it/temiap/temi16/2011scheda[095].pdf.

Comunicato stampa congiunto “Astaldi – Ansaldo STS: firmato il contratto per la linea 5 della metropolitana di Milano”, Roma, 14 giugno 2006, http://www.astaldi.com/sites/astaldi16corp/files/2006_06_14_metro5_milano.pdf

Comunicato stampa congiunto Astaldi – Ansaldo STS: “Firmato il contratto per l’estensione della linea Metro Mi- lano M5”, Roma, 2 febbraio 2011, http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/sites/ansaldosts.message- asp.com/files/downloads/asts_2011_02_02_milano_linea5_congiunto_astaldi_ita.pdf

Comunicato stampa congiunto: “Astaldi – Ansaldo STS: firmato il contratto per la linea 5 della metropolitana di Milano”, Roma, 14 giugno 2006 www.astaldi.com/sites/astaldi16corp/files/2006_06_14_metro5_milano.pdf

Comunicato Stampa Finmeccanica – Hitachi: “Completata la cessione di AnsaldoBreda e Ansaldo STS da Finmec- canica ad Hitachi”, Tokyo, Giappone e Roma, Italia, 2 novembre 2015, http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/closing-hitachi-ansaldobreda-ansaldo-sts

Comunicato stampa: “Ferrovie dello Stato e Astaldi: firmato accordo per la cessione di M5”, Roma, 12 dicembre 2016. http://www.astaldi.com/it/comunicati-stampa/ferrovie-dello-stato-italiane-e-astaldi-firmato- accordo-la-cessione-di-m5

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 24 di 27

www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

Comunicazione del 26 marzo 2010 della Transport Select Committee https://tfl.gov.uk/info- for/media/press-releases/2010/march/transport-select-committee-confirms-tube-ppp-is-flawed-and-has- failed-to-prove-value-for-money

FINLOMBARDA – REGIONE LOMBARDIA, PF Focus, la newsletter sul project finance e sulla finanza strutturata, n. 03 – Dicembre 2007, p. 11. http://www.finlombarda.it/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=4194917&folderId=9650995&name=D LFE-46322.pdf

FINLOMBARDA – REGIONE LOMBARDIA, Public-Private Partnership in Sanità: un possibile schema di contratto di concessione di costruzione e gestione, Novembre 2007 http://www.finlombarda.it/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=054bc3b6-db82-49ca-9c19- a3eb3e2b6190&groupId=1004759

FORMEZ – DIPARTIMENTO DELLA FUNZIONE PUBBLICA PER L’EFFICIENZA DELLE AMMINISTRAZIONI – DIPARTIMENTO PER LE POLITICHE DI SVILUPPO MINISTERO DELL’ECONOMIA E DELLE FINANZE, La Fi- nanza di Progetto, esperienze a confronto, http://valutazioneinvestimenti.formez.it/sites/all/files/La%20Finanza%20di%20Progetto_strumenti%2 027.pdf

GIORGIANTONIO C. –GIOVANNIELLO V., Questioni di economia e finanza: Infrastrutture e project financing in Ita- lia: il ruolo (possibile) della regolamentazione, Banca d’Italia Eurosistema numero 56, novembre 2009, http://www.esternalizzazioni.it/public/File/ESTERNALIZZAZIONI/Giorgiantonio%20e%20Giovan niello,%20PF,%202009.pdf

H.M. TREASURY, A Guidance Note for Public Sector Bodies Forming Joint Venture Companies with the Private Sector, 2001, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-383- 6815?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

H.M. TREASURY, Breaking New Ground, November 1993 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/446/446.pdf

H. M. TREASURY, Local Government Supplement to Standardisation of PFI Contracts, Version 4 https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private- partner- ship/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/UK_Standardisation%20of%20PFI%20Contracts%20(v er4.2007).pdf

H. M. TREASURY, Local Government Supplement to Standardisation of PFI Contracts, Version 3, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121204162226/http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/d/pfi_sopc4markedup_210307c.pdf

H. M. TREASURY, PFI: meeting the investment challenge, July 2003, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/media/F/7/PFI_604a.pdf

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 25 di 27 www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

H.M. TREASURY– INFRASTUCTURE AND PROJECTS AUTHORITY, Case Study: New Tube for London, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/529309/case_study_2 016.pdf

H.M. TREASURY, Infrastructure Procurement: Delivering Long-Term Value, 2008 http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/d/bud08_procurement_533.pdf

H.M. TREASURY, London Underground Private Public Partnerships, 2005 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/446/446.pdf

H.M. TREASURY, PFI: Strengthening Long-Term Partnerships, 2006 https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/23758291/Treasury%20- %20PFI%20Strenghtening%20long%20term%20partnerships.pdf?api=v2

HOUSE OF COMMONS - COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, Department of Transport: the Failure of Metronet, 2010 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/390/390.pdf

HOUSE OF COMMONS-COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, Department of Transport: the Failure of Metronet, 2010, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubacc/390/390.pdf

KELLAWAY M. – SHANKS H., Metronet, Tube Lines and the London Underground PPP, National Statistics, NACC decisions – 24 September 2007, https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/na-classification/national- accounts-sector-classification/classification-of-metronet--tube-lines-and-the-london-underground- ppp/classification-of-metronet--tube-lines-and-the-london-underground-ppp-.pdf

NAO, The Failure of Metronet, 2009, https://www.nao.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2009/06/0809512es.pdf

ORDINE DEGLI INGEGNERI DELLA PROVINCIA DI ROMA – COMMISSIONE PROJECT FINANCING E PARTE- NARIATO PUBBLICO PRIVATO, Quaderni di Project Financing – Il confronto tra appalto e concessione, la valutazione del Value for Money, https://www.ording.roma.it/archivio/7497-vfmpubblicazione11feb10-online-1.pdf

PALMIERI A. e PARDOLESI R., CARANTA R., FRACCHIA F., ROMANO A., note a Cass. Sez. Un., 22 luglio 1999, n. 500/SU in Foro.it, 1999, I, 2487 e 3201

POLITECNICO DI MILANO – DIPARTIMENTO DI INGEGNERIA GESTIONALE, Secondo Report Italiano sui Mini- Bond. Osservatorio Mini-Bond. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale, febbraio 2016 www.osservatoriominibond.it/webportal/docdownload?codice=405

RICCHI M., Finanza di Progetto, Contributo Pubblico, Controllo ed Equità (Le Concessioni sono Patrmonio Pubblico), Documento UFP – CIPE – maggio 2006, http://www.osservatorioappalti.unitn.it/viewFile.do?id=1252054844655&dataId=2136&filename=Testo. pdf

SABATINI M., Project Financing, un’opportunità solo parzialmente, Lab-Ip, Laboratorio per l’innovazione pubblica, 2015, http://www.lab-ip.net/project-financing-unopportunita-colta-solo-parzialmente

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 26 di 27 www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821

Rivista di diritto amministrativo

SANTANGELO E. – ALIMONTI A. – BALDI F.; Deloitte – Gli investimenti in infrastrutture di trasporto Scelte di finanziamento e spunti di riflessione dai progetti recentemente sviluppati in Italia, 2017, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/it/Documents/manufacturing/170127_infrastrutture _DEF_WEB.pdf

TRANQUILLI M. – MARASCO P., La riforma dei contratti pubblici, Il nuovo Codice e la disciplina attuativa. Partenaria- to Pubblico Privato e Project finance, www.regione.lazio.it/binary/rl_main/tbl_documenti/INF_ALLEGATOB.pdf www.allenovery.com www.alstom.com; www.ansaldo.com www.astaldi.com www.atm.it www.bechtel.com www.borsaitaliana.it www.camera.it www.cantieri.mit.gov.it www.codiceappalti.it www.comune.milano.it www.deloitte.com www.finlombarda.it www.fsitaliane.it www.gov.uk www.italy.hitachirail.com www.italy.hitachirail.com www.lab-ip.net www.legislation.gov.uk www.leonardocompany.com www.localpartnerships.org.uk www.nao.org.uk www.ons.gov.uk www.ording.roma.it www.osservatoriominibond.it www.partnershipsuk.org.uk www.publications.parliament.uk www.regione.lombardia.it www.regionelazio.it www.tfl.gov.uk

Fascicolo n. 11-12/2017 Pag. 27 di 27 www.amministrativamente.com ISSN 2036-7821