A frontal and disruptive attack that spared no one; from Consob to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
To reiterate the extraneousness of the accusations made against Guido Cicognani, vice president of the former bioplastic giant Bio On which failed in 2019.
To do so, in front of the investigating magistrate Maria Cristina Sarli called to decide over the fate of 10 defendants accused of various title of market manipulation and fraudulent bankruptcy, were the lawyers of the former number two: Luigi Panella and Paolo De Miranda.
A very tough speech with direct accusations towards Maurizio Salom (the accountant hired by Quintessential to make an opinion on Bio On), “who had positions in Novamont”, a rival company of Bio On, called into question for his “conflicts of interest “. “
Novamont SpA replied:
” What reported does not correspond to the truth and is without foundation. Novamont has not played a role or has taken actions aimed at influencing the events of Bio On or causing its insolvency Neither Novamont (a market leader that has existed for more than 30 years) could be considered a competitor of Bio On, whose objective was the production of a specialty to create products with characteristics and market positioning different from those of Novamont “.
Personal Remarks
Let me summarize the situation as I understand it. According to the lawyer involved in the case, the accountant hired by hedge fund Quintessential Capital Management — the firm that published the report which severely damaged Bio-on and allegedly held short positions against it — also had ties to Novamont.
A coincidence? Perhaps. But personally, I find the overlap difficult to ignore.
Ironically, Novamont has also been associated with another controversial chapter in the bioplastics industry, involving the downfall of Anti-Oxo Plastics.
In my view, a major injustice was committed against Bio-on. In the European Union, the principle is that people and companies are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet years later, I am still waiting to see definitive proof that Bio-on knowingly acted fraudulently. In the meantime, the company was effectively taken away from its founders through actions by the Italian judicial system.
That raises an important question: how can such a situation unfold within the EU before final judgments are reached?
Because I believed Bio-on deserved the opportunity to present its side of the story, I allowed the company’s CEO to publish articles on my blog. Open debate matters, especially when reputations and livelihoods are at stake.
As a result, I received threatening legal letters for giving him that platform. I forwarded those letters to three judges in Italy.
At this stage, the issue goes beyond whether PHA bioplastics are environmentally friendly or commercially viable. It has become a matter of fundamental rights, human dignity, and fair treatment under the law.
My hope is that, in time, the Italian justice system will correct what many perceive as a profound injustice against Bio-on.
And perhaps there is a broader lesson here: business should be conducted with integrity. Companies and individuals should compete fairly, not through campaigns or schemes designed to destroy others.
Refs
Bio On, tutte le accuse dell’ex vicepresidente
Bio On, Novamont chiarisce: “Mai concorrenti né rivali della startup”
Leave a Reply