Half-yearly financial Report at June 30, 2013 - A2A

Half-yearly financial report at June 30, 2013Other informationjudge, extending the argument) and called that Ergosud S.p.A. alone should be ordered to paydamages, in part similar to those claimed by the Consortium, quantified in 27,467,031 euro.The legitimacy of SFC S.A. is independent with respect to that of the Consortium, the originalclaimant, and should it be found that the request of the Consortium may not proceed furtherfor lack of grounds (or because of the bankruptcy that has occurred), the judgment wouldcontinue between SFC S.A. and Ergosud S.p.A.. In this scenario, A2A S.p.A. could ask to beexcluded since no request would have been raised against the company, but for the purposeof simplicity the judge would probably remit the question to the final sentence.Within the term set for the first hearing the lawyers formulated conclusions on behalf ofErgosud S.p.A. in respect of the request made by SFC S.A., then counter-claiming in a morecomplete manner in the subsequent preliminary pleading pursuant to article 183, section VI ofthe civil procedure code.126The judge found the bankruptcy was legitimate as SFC S.A. and therefore set the end of theproceedings and the hearing for December 19, 2012, declaring the need to execute an expertopinion on a number of points, indicating the questions to put to the expert and setting May23, 2013 as the date for the hearing to appoint the court’s expert witness. At that hearing thejudge, changed in the meantime, confirmed the questions already formulated on December19, 2012 and appointed the court experts Messrs. Pompili and Caroli, setting a term for theparties to appoint their own consultants. The start of the experts’ work was scheduled as June18, 2013, with a deadline of 180 days after that date. A2A S.p.A. and Ergosud S.p.A. appointedProf. Massardo and Mr. Gioffrè as their experts, persons who over the years have alreadydrawn up reports on the matters to which the questions refer.The company is represented by the legal firm Simmons & Simmons.CIP 6 auxiliary servicesInspections have been carried out by the GSE (Energy Services Manager), instructed by theAEEG (Electricity and Gas Authority), at companies in Tuscany using plants party to CIP6/92conventions, to determine the amount of electricity (produced by plants fired by renewablesources) consumed by auxiliary plant services, as defined by the AEEG. The inspections werefollowed by an AEEG provision contesting that the amount of electricity used by auxiliaryservices was greater than the level indicated in the respective conventions and at the sametime the AEEG instructed the Electricity Sector Equalization Fund to recover the amountsunduly received by the two companies. These amounts are equal - according to the AEEG’scalculations - to the difference between the energy for which the plants received CIP 6incentives and the energy that (again according to the AEEG) would have actually been