Connect with us

News

The 20-year inheritance feud dividing the Fiat dynasty

Published

on

The 20-year inheritance feud dividing the Fiat dynasty

Five years ago members of Italy’s most celebrated business dynasty gathered at a grand 18th-century villa outside Turin following the funeral of Marella Agnelli, widow of the great 20th-century industrialist Gianni Agnelli.

But rather than a sombre reunion, the event proved the latest flashpoint in a feud that has split the family as the late couple’s only surviving child Margherita clashed with her son John Elkann over her father’s multibillion-euro estate. They have not seen each other since, according to several relatives.

The schism was thrust back into the spotlight last month when authorities raided the home and offices of Elkann, head of the family business and chair of carmaker Stellantis, following a complaint by his mother that he had helped her mother evade Italian tax.

“Margherita Agnelli has been persecuting her three eldest children and her parents in the courts for over 20 years,” lawyers for Elkann said after the raids.

A fight over the legacy of Gianni Agnelli

The 20-year dispute has pitted Margherita against her three eldest children in a fight the 68-year-old says she is pursuing for the sake of the five children she had by her second husband. Billions of euros in assets are in contention including Monet and Picasso artworks and a stake in Dicembre, the ultimate parent of listed conglomerate Exor, the value of whose holdings have grown 2,700 per cent to €33bn under Elkann since his grandfather’s death more than two decades ago.

Advertisement
Gianni Agnelli with his wife Marella Caracciolo © Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

As well as Fiat, the carmaker Gianni Agnelli built into one of the biggest in the world and which is now part of global car group Stellantis, Exor holds major stakes in businesses from luxury car manufacturer Ferrari and Juventus Football Club to Dutch medical equipment maker Philips and news magazine The Economist.

“At stake is ownership of Dicembre and therefore of Exor . . . if Margherita were to emerge victorious in her [multiple] claims there would be a redistribution of Dicembre’s ownership stakes and Elkann would lose the majority,” said Mauro Orlandi, professor of private law at Luiss University in Rome.

When Gianni Agnelli died in 2003, his widow and daughter each inherited a 37.5 per cent stake in Dicembre as well as assets worth hundreds of millions of euros, from art to property in Italy and overseas. Elkann, his grandfather’s anointed successor, had already been gifted 25 per cent of the company.

The following year, when debt-laden Fiat’s survival was in doubt, Margherita decided she wanted out of the family business and agreed to a €1.2bn payout in exchange for transferring her stake in Dicembre to her mother and relinquishing any rights over her estate.

After that settlement, made under Swiss law as Marella and Margherita each lived in Switzerland at the time, the grandmother sold part of Dicembre to Elkann’s younger siblings Lapo and Ginevra, who now each own 20 per cent, and sold the rest of her holding to John over the years.

Advertisement

But soon after the agreement Margherita had a change of heart — prompted, she said, by the discovery that her father’s estate included hundreds of millions of euros that had been hidden abroad, a share of which she claimed she was entitled to. In 2010 she lost a legal challenge to the 2004 agreement — but that did not stop the family feud from rumbling on.

Under the settlement Margherita also had to pay an annuity to her mother. She now claims that her mother did not pay income tax on this annuity in 2018 or 2019, arguing that she should have done so under the laws of Italy, where she insists Marella spent most of her time in the last years of her life so did not qualify for Swiss residency.

A spokesperson for Margherita told the Financial Times that she had always sought simply to defend the interests of her five children by her second husband Serge de Pahlen — and to “respect her father’s will as he had only donated 25 per cent of Dicembre to John Elkann, leaving the rest to Margherita and widow Marella Caracciolo”.

Stellantis reported record annual profits of €18.6bn last month © Giuliano Berti/Bloomberg

Seller’s remorse?

Elkann’s lawyers say Margherita cashed out in 2004 “at a time when the future of her family’s and her son’s business interests were uncertain”, and that she later changed her mind after his turnaround of Fiat, hoping to profit from the family’s additional wealth.

Margherita’s lawyers reject this, saying she had been “provoked” by her three eldest children, referring to an ongoing lawsuit brought by Marella in Switzerland in 2015 and taken over by John the following year to confirm the validity of the 2004 inheritance settlement. Lapo and Ginevra Elkann joined the case after their grandmother ‘s death. Further cases continue in Switzerland over Marella’s estate.

“It is a fact that the Elkanns initiated a case against their mother [in Switzerland] even before their grandmother’s will was published,” the lawyer said.

Advertisement

Margherita’s cousin Lupo Rattazzi said he believed there was “seller’s remorse” in Margherita’s conduct.

“I remember her telling me [Fiat] was going to end up like Parmalat,” he told the FT, referring to the Italian food group that collapsed in 2003. “If it weren’t for the enormous increase in the value of her stake [in Dicembre] after she sold, she would not have reneged on the settlement.”

Rich rewards

John Elkann now owns 60 per cent of Dicembre, which ultimately controls Exor. The largest shareholder in Stellantis, Exor is set to reap about €700mn in dividends after the carmaking group last month reported record annual profits of €18.6bn.

Assets owned by Exor, formerly known as IFIL, have increased to about €33bn from about €1.2bn when Elkann’s grandfather died.

Family members had hoped the differences could be worked out, with Ginevra Elkann acting as interlocutor between her grandmother, mother and brothers. But those hopes vanished at the funeral reception for Marella, where Margherita and John had yet another row, according to several guests.

Advertisement

A key point of contention now is where Marella lived in her latter years. Margherita’s legal team has argued that she resided in Italy so her will should have been regulated by Italian law, under which children are always entitled to a portion of a parent’s estate.

Lawyers for the three Elkann siblings have argued in court that Margherita gave up her right to any further inheritance claim when she signed the 2004 agreement.

“In 2004, Mrs de Pahlen freely decided to sell her shares [in Dicembre], a transaction that cannot be reversed now,” a spokesperson for the Elkanns told the Financial Times.

But Margherita’s lawyers disagree. In lawsuits in Italy and Switzerland, she is challenging the validity of her mother’s will, drawn up in Switzerland in 2011, from which she was excluded based on the 2004 agreement.

Four of the five de Pahlen children have joined their mother in cases disputing their grandmother’s will. In one case, which has been going on for four years, Margherita is also challenging whether Switzerland should have jurisdiction over her mother’s estate.

Advertisement

According to several independent legal experts, if the tax fraud complaint that triggered this month’s raids is successful and prosecutors conclude Marella was living in Italy before she died, and not Switzerland as she claimed, it could help Margherita’s legal team argue that Italian law should govern the dispute over her mother’s will.

But the spokesperson for the Elkanns said there was “no scenario under which control and ownership of Dicembre can be altered by Mrs de Pahlen’s manoeuvres”.

Agnelli family saga flow chart

Family schism

The dispute has split Margherita’s children. Lapo and Ginevra have sided with their brother John and have cut off contact with their mother and half-siblings, according to friends and family.

People close to both sides of the family say the relationship between Margherita, an artist who has never worked in the family business, and her three children from her marriage to Alain Elkann has been “fraught” since their early years.

Some members of the extended family who did not wish to be named argue that Margherita’s sense of aggrievement is justified, alleging that some assets were hidden from her in relation to the 2004 agreement and others, including paintings worth hundreds of millions of euros, had disappeared since Marella’s death. 

“Margherita’s father left her paintings that were kept by her mother until her death [by legal agreement] but some of these artworks have gone missing,” her spokesperson said. 

Advertisement

However, the spokesperson for the Elkanns said “there are categorically no missing paintings, these artworks were the personal property of Marella Caracciolo Agnelli and at her passing they were all fully accounted for in her estate by the Swiss court-appointed administrator”, adding that Margherita seemed “determined to inflict emotional pain on her three eldest children”. 

With seven legal cases under way that will take years to conclude, friends and relatives say the chances of a settlement are slim and the family is “unlikely to find peace” soon. 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending