Investigations by Rai 3 and Affaritaliani reveal previously reported connections involving Novamont, short-selling funds, overlapping investment-fund directorships and the prosecutor who investigated Bio-on. The evidence raises questions about the scope of Italy’s financial and judicial investigations, without establishing a coordinated campaign against the company.
A Billion-Euro Dream That Ended in Bankruptcy
In July 2019, Bio-on, an Italian bioplastics company once valued at approximately €1.3 billion, became the target of a devastating short-selling report published by Quintessential Capital Management, an investment firm headed by Gabriele Grego.
Within hours, Bio-on’s shares lost approximately 70% of their value. Three months later, founder Marco Astorri was arrested as part of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities. The company subsequently collapsed into bankruptcy proceedings.
The conventional explanation is that Bio-on’s spectacular stock-market valuation concealed serious weaknesses in its finances and business model.
There was substantial evidence of those weaknesses. But subsequent investigations by Italian public broadcaster Rai 3 and, more recently, financial journalist Lorenzo Goj of Affaritaliani have raised a different question: were all the financial interests surrounding Bio-on’s collapse adequately examined?
The emerging picture involves Quintessential, individuals with corporate connections to Novamont, the Italian financial regulator CONSOB, another major hedge fund called Marshall Wace, and a series of overlapping professional relationships involving Amber Capital.
None of these relationships, individually or collectively, proves a conspiracy or financial misconduct. Nevertheless, the documented chronology deserves examination.
Bio-on Had Real Technology — But Troubled Finances
Bio-on’s business originated in technology developed by Professor Jian Yu at the University of Hawaiʻi. The company acquired rights relating to a fermentation process for producing polyhydroxyalkanoates, or PHA, a family of biodegradable polymers manufactured through microbial processes.
According to Rai’s investigation, Bio-on subsequently worked with industrial partners including Co.Pro.B, Kartell and Rivoira, developing prototypes and exploring potential commercial applications.
The technology was not imaginary.
However, the financial expectations attached to it became increasingly ambitious.
Bio-on initially pursued a licensing model under which industrial partners would pay for access to its technology. Later, it invested in its own production facilities and established joint ventures.
Rai documented a striking discrepancy between announced commercial agreements and actual receipts. According to the programme, more than €60 million in contracts and licensing arrangements generated less than €2 million in cash.
The company also announced potential applications ranging from packaging and cigarette filters to medical technologies, many of which remained at an early development stage.
These circumstances formed part of the prosecution’s case against the former management.
Yet the existence of accounting problems does not automatically validate every allegation made by a short seller, nor does it make an examination of the short seller’s sources irrelevant.
The distinction between technological validity, commercial viability and financial reporting is central to understanding Bio-on’s collapse.
Quintessential and the July 2019 Attack
Quintessential Capital Management publicly challenged Bio-on in July 2019, comparing the company’s financial structure to that of Parmalat and portraying the business as fundamentally unsound.
Its report questioned both the company’s financial statements and the credibility of its technology.
The fund had an economic interest in a falling share price through its short position.
Short selling is a legitimate financial activity. Investors who identify overvalued companies or accounting irregularities can contribute to price discovery and market transparency.
However, a short seller’s financial interests make the accuracy of its allegations and the independence of its sources particularly important.
Rai’s investigation, Il sogno di plastica, examined the identities and expertise of individuals consulted for Quintessential’s research.
One technical consultant interviewed by Rai, Roberto Filippini Fantoni, acknowledged that biodegradable plastics were not his specialist field. His criticism, he indicated, concerned Bio-on’s promotional claims rather than proof that its underlying material could not work.
The programme also identified individuals connected to Novamont among the sources associated with Quintessential’s investigation.
This is where the story becomes particularly interesting.
The Novamont Connections
Novamont was an established Italian producer of biodegradable and compostable materials operating in an overlapping commercial sector.
Rai identified accountant Maurizio Salom as a person consulted in connection with Quintessential’s research.
At the time, Salom held or had held several corporate positions associated with Novamont’s ownership and governance structures, according to Rai’s reconstruction.
These included roles involving Mater-Bi, Novamont’s board of statutory auditors and IMT.
Salom told Rai that his numerous professional appointments were simply part of his work as an accountant and corporate officer.
However, intercepted conversations reproduced by the broadcaster introduced additional questions.
In one conversation with his son, Salom discussed the possibility of shorting Bio-on shares. In another, he referred to information suggesting that prosecutors might soon take action affecting the company.
When questioned by Rai, Salom said that information came from a friend, not someone inside the prosecutor’s office.
The recording does not establish that Salom actually shorted Bio-on, possessed unlawfully obtained information or committed any offence.
Nevertheless, the conversations were sufficiently noteworthy for investigators to examine whether he had personal interests concerning Bio-on.
Rai also revealed that Salom had considered involving Michele Casò, then chairman of Novamont’s board of statutory auditors, but expressed reservations because of Casò’s corporate position.
Several months later, Casò was appointed as an adviser to Bio-on’s bankruptcy administrator.
That sequence raises an obvious governance question: was the potential conflict arising from Casò’s Novamont position disclosed and assessed before his appointment?
The programme also reported that Catia Bastioli, Novamont’s chief executive at the time, appeared on a list of individuals consulted for Quintessential’s report, which Gabriele Grego presented during court proceedings.
Being consulted does not establish participation in the fund’s trading decisions or knowledge of its investment strategy.
Perhaps the most significant material concerns the investigators’ own assessment.
Rai reproduced an extract from the Guardia di Finanza investigation suggesting a possible involvement or direct interest by the Novamont group in Bio-on’s destruction.
That was an investigative hypothesis, not a judicial finding.
The Novamont-related line of inquiry apparently did not lead to established wrongdoing.
The unresolved issue is what evidence was examined before investigators abandoned that possibility.
CONSOB and the Missing Short-Selling Positions
Rai also published recordings of conversations involving Bio-on founder Marco Astorri and CONSOB official Donato Damiani.
During one exchange, Damiani said that Quintessential was under investigation. In another, he indicated that he had wanted to question Gabriele Grego but had been prevented from doing so internally.
These statements raise questions about CONSOB’s internal handling of the affair.
They do not, by themselves, establish that the regulator acted unlawfully or deliberately protected Quintessential.
CONSOB told Rai that it had acted within the powers available under the law.
A separate issue has emerged through an investigation published by Affaritaliani on 21 October 2026.
According to journalist Lorenzo Goj, the criminal investigation had identified four investment firms whose short positions in Bio-on exceeded the public disclosure threshold: Engadine Partners, Think Investments, Cadian Capital Management and Ennismore Fund Management.
However, Goj reported examining confidential CONSOB notifications that identified additional institutions, including Marshall Wace, GSA Capital Partners, Wellington Management and others.
At the relevant time, European rules required notification of certain net short positions starting at 0.2% of issued share capital, while public disclosure generally began at 0.5%.
This difference matters.
An investor could hold a significant short position that was known to the regulator but remained invisible to ordinary investors.
Affaritaliani reports that the additional positions did not feature in the publicly documented scope of the prosecution’s investigation.
Its account of the confidential records has not been independently reproduced here.
Nevertheless, the reporting raises a legitimate question: did investigators obtain and examine the complete short-position notification archive, including positions below the public disclosure threshold?
Marshall Wace: Ten Notifications in 2018
Among the additional financial institutions identified by Affaritaliani was Marshall Wace, a prominent international investment manager.
According to the newspaper’s examination of CONSOB notification records, Marshall Wace LLP submitted ten short-position notifications concerning Bio-on between 20 June and 8 November 2018.
Its reported position reached 0.43% of Bio-on’s share capital on 22 October 2018, before declining to approximately 0.21% in the last identified notification.
These positions were below the threshold for public disclosure at the time.
They also predated Quintessential’s July 2019 report.
The available evidence does not establish whether Marshall Wace continued to hold a short position when Quintessential launched its attack.
Nor does it demonstrate cooperation between the two investment managers.
There is nothing inherently improper about Marshall Wace having maintained a short position.
The relevant question is whether its activity, and that of other previously unidentified funds, was considered during the broader investigation of Bio-on’s collapse.
Barbara Healy: A Link Between Two Investment Groups
Affaritaliani’s investigation identified another potentially relevant connection involving Irish financial-services professional Barbara Healy.
Official Central Bank of Ireland records show that Healy served as an independent non-executive director of Amber Capital Investment Management ICAV, beginning in September 2015 and ending in July 2022.
Historical records also identify appointments involving Amber Global Opportunities, Amber Active Investors and Amber Southern European Equity.
Separately, Healy served as an independent non-executive director of Marshall Wace Asset Management Ireland Limited from September 2018 until May 2021.
Her appointments therefore overlapped during the period surrounding Bio-on’s collapse.
It is essential to distinguish the corporate entities involved.
Healy’s role at Marshall Wace Asset Management Ireland Limited does not mean she managed trading positions reported by Marshall Wace LLP.
Similarly, serving on the board of an Amber-related investment vehicle does not mean she was employed by Amber Capital Italia or supervised Giorgio Martorelli’s investment decisions.
Non-executive directors generally perform oversight and governance functions rather than executing individual trades.
There is no documented evidence that Healy traded Bio-on securities, transmitted confidential information between investment groups or influenced prosecutors.
Nevertheless, the overlapping directorships establish a professional governance connection between investment structures associated with Amber Capital and Marshall Wace.
In the context of the wider Bio-on investigation, this raises questions about whether the relevant corporate relationships were identified and, if necessary, assessed.
A relationship is not misconduct. But examining relevant relationships can be part of establishing whether an investigation was sufficiently comprehensive.
Amber Capital and the Prosecutor’s Twin Brother
Another strand of Rai’s investigation concerns Michele Martorelli, a public prosecutor involved in the criminal case against Bio-on.
His twin brother, Giorgio Martorelli, is CEO of Amber Capital Italia SGR and an investment manager specialising in Italian equities.
Amber Capital’s own website confirms his executive position.
Rai reported discovering an email from 2017 in which Amber Capital expressed interest in obtaining information about Bio-on’s business.
The broadcaster questioned whether that relationship presented a potential conflict of interest, given Michele Martorelli’s subsequent role in the criminal proceedings.
However, the existence of family ties between a prosecutor and a financial-sector executive does not automatically establish a conflict.
Crucially, Amber Capital Italia stated on 10 December 2024, according to Affaritaliani, that it had never traded Bio-on securities, either for itself or on behalf of third parties.
The newspaper’s examination of short-position records did not identify Amber Capital among the reported operators.
Both Amber Capital and the prosecutor’s office rejected suggestions of a conflict of interest.
Rai also reported that Italy’s Superior Council of the Judiciary did not identify irregularities following concerns raised by Bio-on shareholders.
The unresolved question is narrower than an allegation of wrongdoing: whether the relevant relationships and trading information were fully examined and documented.
Shareholders Continue Seeking Accountability
The collapse of Bio-on resulted in substantial investor losses.
An initiative organised through ClassActionBioOn.com brings together former shareholders seeking to preserve their potential legal rights and explore possible compensation claims involving CONSOB and Borsa Italiana.
The website describes arrangements for shareholders to authorise lawyer Stefano Commodo to undertake preliminary steps concerning limitation periods.
It also makes clear that any subsequent compensation action would require further legal examination.
The existence of this initiative does not establish that either CONSOB or Borsa Italiana is liable for investors’ losses.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates that questions concerning regulatory oversight remain important to affected shareholders.
Meanwhile, Affaritaliani reported in October 2026 that proceedings concerning former Bio-on management had reached the appeal stage.
The criminal proceedings and the questions surrounding the short-selling activity must remain analytically separate.
Accounting irregularities, even where established by a court, do not automatically resolve every question about market conduct before a company’s collapse.
A Technology That Outlived Its Original Company
One of the most striking aspects of Rai’s investigation is that Bio-on’s technology survived the company’s bankruptcy.
Italian industrial group MAIP acquired Bio-on’s assets for approximately €17 million.
Its president, Eligio Martini, told Rai that the acquired equipment and technology had industrial value and described ongoing PHA production activity.
This is significant because the debate surrounding Bio-on frequently conflated three distinct questions: whether its technology worked, whether its business model was economically sustainable, and whether its financial disclosures complied with applicable requirements.
A commercially promising technology can be associated with an overvalued company.
A company can publish misleading financial information while possessing valuable intellectual property.
And legitimate criticism of corporate finances does not exclude scrutiny of the financial interests behind that criticism.
The Bio-on affair illustrates all these possibilities.
The Questions That Remain
The investigations by Rai and Affaritaliani establish a series of previously reported relationships and financial activities.
They do not establish a coordinated campaign by Novamont, Amber Capital, Marshall Wace or Quintessential to destroy Bio-on.
Nor do they prove that prosecutors or regulators deliberately overlooked misconduct.
What they do establish is the need to distinguish thoroughly between the actions of Bio-on’s former management and the conduct of those who had financial or commercial interests surrounding its collapse.
Several questions remain unanswered.
Did investigators examine all reportable short positions held in Bio-on, including those below the public disclosure threshold?
Were the relevant investment-fund governance relationships identified?
What information was available to investigators concerning potential conflicts of interest?
And what evidence led investigators to discontinue the Novamont-related line of inquiry described by Rai?
Bio-on’s financial problems may explain why its valuation was vulnerable. They do not, on their own, answer every question about the market activity, professional relationships and regulatory decisions surrounding its collapse.
Seven years after the short-selling attack, the distinction remains important—not only for Bio-on’s former shareholders, but also for the credibility of financial oversight and investor protection.
Sources and Further Reading
1. Rai 3 — Report, Il sogno di plastica, Danilo Procaccianti. Investigation, interviews, intercepted conversations, Novamont-related material and CONSOB recordings.
2. Affaritaliani — Lorenzo Goj, 21 October 2026, Processo Bio-on, ombre sulla procura? Reported CONSOB short-position records, Marshall Wace, Barbara Healy and Amber Capital’s response.
https://www.affaritaliani.it/economia/processo-bio-on-ombre-sulla-procura.html
3. Central Bank of Ireland — Barbara Healy historical directorship disclosure. Amber-related appointments.
4. Central Bank of Ireland — Updated Barbara Healy directorship record. Historical governance appointments involving Amber Capital and Marshall Wace entities.
5. Amber Capital — Corporate website. Giorgio Martorelli’s executive role.
6. Bio-on shareholder initiative — Class Action Bio-on. Shareholder concerns and preliminary legal initiative.
https://www.classactionbioon.com
7. Rai Report / CONSOB Bio-on video. Supplementary historical audiovisual material.
Editorial note: This article examines matters of public interest using published journalistic investigations, regulatory disclosures and publicly available statements. Reported relationships and investigative hypotheses should not be interpreted as findings of unlawful conduct by the individuals or organisations named.
