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. 

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading

News

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

Published

on

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

The firing of US Navy Secretary John Phelan is the latest in a shakeup of the American military during the war on Iran, now in its eighth week.

The Pentagon said Phelan would leave office immediately.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. “We wish him well in his future endeavours”.

His firing comes at a critical moment, with US naval forces enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, and maintaining a heavy presence around the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime.

Although the Pentagon gave no official reason for the dismissal, reports indicate the decision was linked to internal disputes, including tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Advertisement

Phelan’s removal is part of a broader pattern of dismissals and restructuring within the US military under President Donald Trump’s administration – including during the current war.

So, who is John Phelan, and what impact could his firing have on US military strategy?

Who is John Phelan?

As the US Navy’s top civilian official, Phelan had various responsibilities, including overseeing recruiting, mobilising and organising, as well as construction and repair of ships and military equipment.

He was appointed in 2024 as a political ally of Trump, despite having no prior military or defence leadership experience.

Before entering government, Phelan was a businessman and investment executive, as well as a major Republican donor and fundraiser — a background that is fairly common among Trump appointees and advisers. The US president’s two top diplomatic negotiators, for instance, are Steve Witkoff — a real estate businessman with no prior diplomatic experience – and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Advertisement

According to the Reuters news agency, Phelan’s tenure quickly became controversial. He faced criticism for moving too slowly on shipbuilding reforms and for strained relationships with key Pentagon figures, including Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg.

rump with U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Michael Borgschulte and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan (R) before the game between the Navy Midshipmen and the Army West Point Black Knights at M&T Bank Stadium [File: Tommy Gilligan/Imagn Images/Reuters]

In addition, Phelan was reportedly under an ethics investigation, which may have weakened his standing in the administration.

Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, who was also reported to have a difficult relationship with Phelan, has become acting secretary. Fifty-four-year-old Cao is a 25-year Navy veteran who previously ran as a Republican candidate for the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024 respectively, but was unsuccessful on both occasions.

Democrats have criticised Phelan’s removal, calling it “troubling”.

“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defense under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” said Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Advertisement

Who else has the Trump administration fired since the war with Iran began?

Phelan’s removal is the latest in a series of senior military leaders being fired or are leaving during the US-Israeli war on Iran, in addition to others since Trump was re-elected.

Among the most notable dismissals was Army Chief of Staff General Randy A. George, in the first week of April. George was appointed in 2023 under former US President Joe Biden.

According to reports, Hegseth also fired the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, a unit concerned with modernising the army, and the Army’s chief of chaplains. The Pentagon has not confirmed their dismissal.

Why is Phelan’s dismissal significant?

The 62-year-old’s removal comes during a fragile ceasefire with Iran, as the ⁠⁠US continues to move more naval assets into the region.

The Navy is central to enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports to restrict Iran’s oil exports and apply economic pressure on Tehran, as the US president looks eager to wrap up the war, which is deeply unpopular to many Americans.

Advertisement

However, there are no indications that Trump is willing to end the blockade or other naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran have come to a standstill.

Tensions have escalated in recent days after the US military seized an Iranian container ship. The US claimed it was attempting to sail from the Arabian Sea through the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Tehran responded by describing the attack and hijack as an act of “piracy”.

Iran has since captured two cargo ships and fired at another.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Published

on

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Just two weeks ago, President Trump threatened to wipe out Iran’s civilization if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz. Days later, he said any Iranian “who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!”

Yet on Wednesday, after Iran seized two ships near the Strait of Hormuz, the White House was quick to argue the action was not a deal breaker for potential peace negotiations.

“These were not U.S. ships,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Fox News. “These were not Israeli ships.” Therefore, she explained, the Iranians had not violated a cease-fire with the United States that Mr. Trump has extended indefinitely.

She cautioned the news media against “blowing this out of proportion.”

The surprisingly tolerant tone from the White House suggests Mr. Trump is not eager to reignite a war that he started alongside Israel on Feb. 28 — a war that has proved unpopular with Americans and has gone on longer than he initially estimated.

Advertisement

The president on Tuesday extended a cease-fire between the United States and Iran that had been set to expire within hours, saying he wanted to give Tehran a chance to come up with a new proposal to end the war.

The American military has displayed its overwhelming might during the war, successfully striking thousands of targets. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will accomplish the political objectives of the war.

The Iranian regime, even after its top leaders were killed, is still intact. Iran has not agreed to Mr. Trump’s demands to turn over its nuclear capabilities to the United States or significantly curtail them. And the Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for world commerce that was open before the war, remains closed.

Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly highlighted the military successes on the battlefield as evidence it is winning the war.

“We have completely confused and obliterated their regime,” Ms. Leavitt said on Fox Wednesday. “They are in a very weak position thanks to the actions taken by President Trump and our great United States armed forces, and so we will continue this important mission on our own.”

Advertisement

The oscillation between threats and a more conciliatory tone has long been one of Mr. Trump’s signature negotiating strategies.

Potential peace talks between the two countries are on hold. Vice President JD Vance had been poised to fly to Islamabad for negotiations. But the trip was postponed until Iran can “come up with a unified proposal,” Mr. Trump said.

The United States recently transmitted a written proposal to the Iranians intended to establish base-line points of agreement that could frame more detailed negotiations. The document covers a broad range of issues, but the core sticking points are the same ones that have bedeviled Western negotiators for more than a decade: the scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Mr. Trump has not spoken publicly about the cease-fire, other than on social media. On Wednesday, he also posted about topics including “my Apprentice Juggernaut” — a reference to his former television show; the Virginia elections, which he called “rigged”; and a new book about Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending