As Italian prosecutors seek longer prison sentences for Bio-on’s former executives, newly reported confidential short-selling records raise questions about the completeness of the investigation. A reconstruction of events between 2017 and 2019 reveals several striking dates, while important questions remain about the financial transactions surrounding the company’s collapse.
22 October 2026 — Bioplastics News
On 21 October 2026, prosecutors in Bologna requested prison sentences of six years and nine months for Marco Astorri and Guido Cicognani, former executives of Italian bioplastics company Bio-on.
Both had received sentences of five years and two months in November 2024, following proceedings relating to the company’s financial collapse.
The appeal is ongoing.
But on the very day prosecutors requested tougher sentences, Italian publication Affaritaliani released an investigation that raises a potentially significant question:
Were all the financial operators betting against Bio-on adequately examined during the criminal investigation?
According to Affaritaliani, confidential records held by CONSOB, Italy’s financial markets regulator, identify at least 12 operators that reported short positions in Bio-on between 2017 and 2023.
Yet only four operators appeared in the prosecution’s account examined by the publication.
That discrepancy does not establish misconduct. But it raises questions about which operators were investigated, what information prosecutors obtained and whether the complete history of short-selling activity surrounding Bio-on was reconstructed.
With substantial prison sentences at stake, those questions deserve clear answers.
From Bioplastics Pioneer to Financial Collapse
Founded in 2007, Bio-on developed technology for producing polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), a family of biodegradable polymers.
The company listed on Milan’s AIM market on 24 October 2014, initially raising approximately €6.9 million.
Its market capitalisation subsequently exceeded €1 billion, making Bio-on one of Italy’s most prominent biotechnology ventures.
In June 2018, the company inaugurated a €20 million production facility at Castel San Pietro Terme, near Bologna, designed for specialty PHA production.
However, questions emerged about its financial reporting, accounting practices and the commercial viability of its operations.
In July 2019, US-based Quintessential Capital Management published a highly critical report challenging Bio-on’s financial statements and production claims.
Quintessential disclosed that it had a financial interest in a decline in Bio-on’s share price.
The company’s market valuation subsequently collapsed.
On 23 October 2019, Italian financial police intervened, and Astorri was placed under house arrest amid allegations concerning financial reporting and market manipulation.
Bio-on was declared bankrupt in December 2019.
The criminal proceedings ultimately led to eight convictions and one acquittal at first instance in November 2024. The appeal is now underway.
These judicial findings are serious and cannot be dismissed.
However, examining alleged wrongdoing by company executives and examining the conduct of investors who profited from falling share prices are not mutually exclusive exercises.
Both can be relevant to understanding what happened.
The Revelation: Twelve Operators, Not Just Four
According to Affaritaliani, an examination of confidential CONSOB records identified 141 short-position notifications submitted by 14 entities between April 2017 and September 2023.
Two entries were excluded from the publication’s analysis, leaving at least 12 financial operators.
The four funds identified in the prosecution’s account were:
- Engadine Partners
- Think Investments
- Cadian Capital Management
- Ennismore Fund Management
The additional names reported by Affaritaliani include Marshall Wace, BrightSphere, GSA Capital Partners, Wellington Management, Numeric Investors, Indar Capital, Kairos and Tages Capital.
An important distinction must be made.
The 12 operators were identified across several years. This does not mean all 12 held short positions before Bio-on collapsed in July 2019.
Some notifications occurred after the collapse.
Nevertheless, the confidential records reportedly reveal a broader history of bearish positions than the account attributed to the prosecution.
Under the European rules applicable at the time, investors had to notify CONSOB when their net short positions reached 0.2% of a company’s issued share capital.
Public disclosure generally began at 0.5%.
Consequently, positions below the public threshold remained confidential, although CONSOB possessed the relevant notifications.
The significance of the new reporting therefore concerns not merely the number of financial operators, but whether prosecutors obtained and examined the information available to the regulator.
The Chronology: Dates That Deserve Examination
Historical short-position records reveal a series of events that merit closer examination.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2017 | Earliest notifications identified in the confidential records examined by Affaritaliani. |
| 3 April 2018 | BrightSphere reports a short position of 0.52%. |
| 20 June 2018 | Bio-on inaugurates its specialty PHA production facility. Marshall Wace’s reported series of confidential notifications also begins in June 2018. |
| 4 September 2018 | Engadine Partners reports a 0.51% short position. |
| 12 October 2018 | CONSOB holds a private conference call questioning Bio-on’s business plan and accounting practices. On the same date, Engadine reports a 0.84% short position. |
| 22 October 2018 | Marshall Wace reports a confidential 0.43% short position. |
| 8 November 2018 | Marshall Wace’s last identified confidential notification shows 0.21%. |
| 8 January 2019 | CONSOB requests additional accounting documentation from Bio-on. |
| 4–7 March 2019 | Engadine and Think Investments report several changes in their short positions. |
| 10 June 2019 | CONSOB seeks clarification from auditor Ernst & Young. |
| 22 July 2019 | Engadine reports a short position of 1.75%. |
| 23 July 2019 | Quintessential’s critical report emerges, triggering a crisis that intensifies over the following days. |
| 29 August 2019 | Indar Capital submits its first identified confidential notification. |
| 27 September 2019 | Indar reports a confidential 0.30% position. |
| 23 October 2019 | Financial police intervene and Astorri is arrested. |
| 25 November 2024 | Bio-on’s former executives receive first-instance sentences. |
| 10 December 2024 | The Bologna prosecution publicly states that its investigations comprehensively examined relevant short-selling operators. |
| 21 October 2026 | Affaritaliani publishes its findings as prosecutors seek increased sentences in the appeal. |
The dates establish the chronology of reported positions and regulatory activity. They do not establish coordination, unlawful communication or insider trading.
But several individual episodes warrant particular attention.
12 October 2018: CONSOB and Engadine on the Same Day
According to a December 2021 investigation by Corriere di Bologna, CONSOB’s Markets Division organised a conference call on 12 October 2018 involving Bio-on’s president Marco Astorri, representatives of the company and market participants.
The regulator questioned the credibility of Bio-on’s business plan and the accounting treatment of certain joint ventures.
These concerns were not publicly announced through a formal investigation at that time.
Historical short-position disclosures show that Engadine Partners reported a net short position of 0.84% on precisely the same date.
The fund had already disclosed bearish positions in September 2018, meaning its short-selling activity predated the meeting.
Ten days later, on 22 October 2018, Marshall Wace reported a confidential short position of 0.43%.
Marshall Wace had also reported positions before October.
The chronology therefore does not prove that either fund obtained information from CONSOB.
However, it raises a question that could be examined through trading and communication records:
Was any confidential information concerning CONSOB’s concerns communicated to market participants before becoming publicly available?
There is currently no verified evidence establishing such a disclosure.
The same-day coincidence alone cannot answer the question.
March 2019: Multiple Funds Adjust Their Positions
The historical public disclosures provide another noteworthy sequence.
| Date | Financial Operator | Reported Net Short Position |
|---|---|---|
| 4 March 2019 | Engadine Partners | 1.71% |
| 5 March 2019 | Think Investments | 0.95% |
| 6 March 2019 | Engadine Partners | 1.69% |
| 6 March 2019 | Think Investments | 1.04% |
| 7 March 2019 | Engadine Partners | 1.72% |
| 26 March 2019 | Ennismore Fund Management | 0.60% |
These figures reveal that Engadine and Think Investments were adjusting their bearish exposures during the same trading week.
Both reported positions on 6 March.
However, regulatory disclosure dates must not be confused with the precise times at which transactions were executed.
Moreover, funds monitoring the same company’s financial statements may independently reach similar conclusions and adjust positions during the same period.
The records do not establish that Engadine, Think Investments or any other fund coordinated their strategies.
The relevant investigative question is whether the trading decisions were independent and based on publicly available information.
That question cannot be resolved simply by observing similarities between reporting dates.
It requires more detailed evidence.
22 July 2019: Engadine’s Position Before the Quintessential Report
One of the most consequential dates is 22 July 2019.
On that day, Engadine Partners reported a net short position of 1.75% of Bio-on’s share capital.
Quintessential’s damaging report emerged the following day, on 23 July, and received extensive press coverage on 24 July.
There is an essential detail here.
Engadine’s previous reported position, dated 24 April 2019, had been 1.82%.
Consequently, the 22 July disclosure represented a reduction, not an increase, compared with the previous reported position.
It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that this notification demonstrates an increase in Engadine’s short exposure immediately before the report.
Nevertheless, the fund still maintained a substantial bearish position immediately before the publication.
The legitimate questions are whether relevant traders knew about the forthcoming report, whether such knowledge was obtained through legitimate means and whether any trading breached market-abuse rules.
The available disclosures do not establish that Engadine possessed advance information about Quintessential’s publication.
They establish the size of its reported net position on a particular date.
That is an important but limited piece of information.
What Happened to Marshall Wace’s Position?
The confidential records described by Affaritaliani raise another question.
Marshall Wace reportedly submitted ten short-position notifications between 20 June and 8 November 2018.
Its position reached 0.43% on 22 October 2018.
The last identified notification, dated 8 November, showed 0.21%.
According to the publication, the records examined do not show a subsequent notification establishing that the position fell below the reporting threshold.
Was Marshall Wace still short Bio-on when Quintessential published its report in July 2019?
The available records do not establish the answer.
The absence of a subsequent notification is not sufficient to prove that the position remained open.
Equally, a position falling below the public disclosure threshold does not necessarily mean it was completely closed.
Only a more detailed examination of regulatory and transaction records could clarify the position’s actual duration.
Why the Type of Short Selling Matters
A net short position is not necessarily a conventional transaction involving borrowed shares.
Financial operators can establish bearish exposure through different mechanisms, including:
- Traditional short selling, involving borrowed shares that are sold and later repurchased.
- Put options, whose value can increase when the underlying share price falls.
- Contracts for difference, or CFDs, which provide exposure to movements in share prices.
- Swaps and other derivatives.
- Combinations of shares and financial instruments.
These arrangements differ in their contractual obligations, counterparties, financing costs and duration.
A conventional borrowed-share short position generally has no fixed expiration date, whereas some derivatives expire on predetermined dates.
CONSOB’s net short-position notifications can incorporate exposure arising from different financial instruments.
Public disclosures therefore do not reveal the complete trading history.
They do not necessarily identify the precise execution times, counterparties, total profits or dates when individual positions were finally closed.
To reconstruct those elements, investigators may need transaction reports, broker records, securities-lending information, derivatives documentation and other relevant evidence.
This distinction matters because a list of reported positions is not equivalent to an investigation of the transactions underlying those positions.
The Central Question: Did Prosecutors Obtain the Complete CONSOB Records?
The most consequential element of the Affaritaliani investigation may concern the relationship between CONSOB and the Bologna prosecution.
According to the publication, CONSOB declined to release confidential short-position records to Bio-on’s defense lawyers, citing official secrecy.
However, CONSOB reportedly indicated that such records could be provided to prosecutors or judicial police acting under prosecutorial authority if formally requested.
Affaritaliani states that no corresponding request appears in the documents it examined.
This is an important distinction.
The publication’s findings do not definitively establish that prosecutors never obtained the information through another channel.
Nor do they establish that the judicial authorities deliberately excluded relevant evidence.
But the reported absence of the request raises a legitimate question.
If prosecutors were investigating those who may have benefited financially from Bio-on’s collapse, did they obtain the full range of short-selling records available from CONSOB?
If not, why not?
The Prosecution’s December 2024 Statement
The question becomes particularly significant when considered alongside the Bologna prosecution’s public statement of 10 December 2024.
Following reporting by Italian television programme Report, acting chief prosecutor Francesco Caleca stated that investigations by the financial police had comprehensively addressed legal entities that might have benefited financially from falling Bio-on shares through net short positions.
The statement was reported by Il Resto del Carlino.
This was a clear defense of the scope of the prosecution’s investigation.
The new findings published by Affaritaliani create an opportunity to clarify exactly what that investigation involved.
Were all relevant operators examined, including those whose positions were confidential?
Did investigators obtain the complete notification history?
Did they seek transaction-level information where necessary?
And if the confidential records were not obtained, what other evidence supported the conclusion that the inquiry was comprehensive?
The discrepancy between a publicly described comprehensive investigation and the apparently narrower account identified in the 2026 reporting deserves an institutional explanation.
It does not, by itself, establish negligence or misconduct by prosecutors.
Bio-on’s Technology: An Important Distinction
Another aspect of the appeal concerns Bio-on’s industrial technology.
During the 21 October 2026 hearing, prosecutor Michele Martorelli argued that the technology promoted by Bio-on had failed to deliver the production results promised.
He stated that no PHA had been produced as of 31 December 2025, and that this situation remained unchanged on 30 June 2026, following the company’s acquisition by the MAIP Group.
But production claims require careful chronological and technical examination.
Bio-on inaugurated its production facility in June 2018.
On 24 July 2019, the company publicly stated that its factory was operating and producing PHA for applications including cosmetics and furniture developed through commercial partnerships.
Those were company claims, not independent proof that its industrial production targets had been achieved.
Contemporaneous reporting also documented serious doubts raised by an Ernst & Young auditor about the plant’s actual production capacity relative to the volumes communicated publicly.
The existence of a factory therefore cannot resolve allegations of false reporting.
However, the absence of production in 2025 or 2026, under a different ownership structure, cannot by itself establish whether Bio-on possessed functional technology in 2019 or whether its executives committed criminal offences.
That requires evidence concerning the company’s technology, actual production, accounting, commercial agreements and representations to investors during the relevant period.
Commercial difficulties and technological delays are common in the development of industrial bioplastics.
They must nevertheless be distinguished from deliberate misrepresentation.
The question is not simply whether a company produced a particular quantity of polymer.
It is whether its management knowingly misled investors, creditors or other stakeholders about what had been achieved.
Two Investigations, Two Different Questions
The allegations against Bio-on’s former executives and the conduct of short sellers must be assessed separately.
The first concerns whether Bio-on’s management engaged in criminal wrongdoing through financial reporting, corporate transactions or other conduct.
The second concerns whether financial operators trading Bio-on shares acted lawfully and whether the authorities adequately examined potentially relevant market activity.
Evidence supporting the prosecution’s allegations against Bio-on does not automatically establish that every short seller acted properly.
Conversely, discovering suspicious trading would not automatically exonerate Bio-on’s executives.
Both questions deserve examination on their own evidence.
This is especially important when the financial consequences were substantial, investors suffered serious losses and individuals face possible imprisonment.
Bioplastics News Contacts Three Italian Authorities
On 22 October 2026, Bioplastics News sent formal written requests for clarification to three institutions:
- CONSOB, Italy’s financial markets regulator.
- The Bologna Public Prosecutor’s Office, responsible for the original criminal investigation.
- The Prosecutor General’s Office at the Bologna Court of Appeal, involved in the ongoing appeal proceedings.
The questions concern the confidential short-position records, the financial operators identified in the recent reporting, the chronology of reported transactions and the scope of the investigation.
Among other matters, Bioplastics News has asked whether judicial authorities obtained the complete CONSOB records, whether the underlying trading histories were reconstructed and whether potential advance knowledge or coordinated activity was examined.
The institutions have been invited to provide clarification or official statements.
Their responses will be incorporated into this article as soon as they become available.
The requests are intended to establish facts, not to presume wrongdoing by any institution or financial operator.
Questions That Remain Unanswered
The Bio-on affair now presents several questions of substantial public interest.
First: Which of the operators identified in the confidential records held relevant short positions before the July 2019 collapse?
Second: Did the prosecution obtain the complete confidential CONSOB records, or rely on a narrower set of disclosures?
Third: Were the underlying transactions examined sufficiently to establish when positions were opened, modified and closed, which instruments were used and what financial gains, if any, were realised?
Fourth: Did investigators examine whether any operators had access to material non-public information concerning CONSOB’s inquiries or Quintessential’s forthcoming report?
Fifth: If the prosecution’s December 2024 statement described its investigation as comprehensive, what evidence and investigative steps supported that characterisation?
These questions are not proof of a conspiracy.
They are questions about the evidence available to investigators, the scope of their work and the completeness of the public account.
Conclusion: Justice Requires a Complete Financial Picture
Bio-on’s former executives face serious allegations, and a court has already issued convictions at first instance.
The appellate judges must assess the evidence and determine the legal responsibility of the defendants.
Nothing in the short-selling records, by itself, overturns the first-instance judgment or establishes that the defendants are innocent.
Equally, the existence of convictions does not eliminate the public interest in examining the financial activity surrounding the company’s collapse.
The reported existence of additional short-selling operators, the confidential records held by CONSOB and the prosecution’s previous assurances about the completeness of its investigation create a clear need for clarification.
If the Bologna prosecutors examined all relevant operators and transactions, they should be able to explain the scope of that examination, subject to the legal restrictions governing ongoing proceedings.
If significant records were not examined, the reasons for that decision deserve scrutiny.
The objective should not be to replace allegations against Bio-on’s management with unsupported allegations against investment funds or judicial officials.
It should be to establish the fullest possible account of what happened.
Because when a company collapses, investors lose substantial sums and former executives face years in prison, the completeness of the investigation is not a secondary issue.
It is fundamental to public confidence in the administration of justice.
Sources and Documentation
- Affaritaliani — Processo Bio-on, ombre sulla procura? (21 October 2026)
- Rai News — Bio-on appeal: prosecutors request six years and nine months (21 October 2026)
- Il Resto del Carlino — Bologna prosecution’s statement on short sellers (10 December 2024)
- Corriere di Bologna — CONSOB’s earlier concerns and the role of auditors (7 December 2021)
- QuiVad — Historical Bio-on short-position disclosures, sourced from CONSOB
- CONSOB — Official statement on the Bio-on case (25 October 2019)
- Borsa Italiana — Bio-on’s AIM market listing (24 October 2014)
- ANSA — First-instance Bio-on judgment (25 November 2024)
- Bio-on — Company’s historical statement concerning PHA production (24 July 2019)
Editorial disclosure: This article draws on published court reporting, public historical disclosures, company statements and the confidential-record findings reported by Affaritaliani. Bioplastics News has not independently obtained the complete confidential CONSOB records or the full judicial case file. No coordination, insider trading or prosecutorial misconduct by the persons and entities discussed is established by the chronology presented here.