With regard to third-party revocatory opposition against an arbitral award, a shareholder of a limited liability company has standing to bring the challenge not in his capacity as shareholder, to assert the patrimonial prejudice that damage to the company's assets may have caused to the value of his shareholding, given the merely reflected and not autonomously compensable nature of such prejudice, but rather as a creditor of the company, where he has made payments of money in favour of the entity having the nature of a true and proper financing, attributable to the loan scheme, capable of giving rise to a certain and not merely contingent right to restitution. The qualification of the payment as financing, and not as a contribution allocable to risk capital, must be ascertained in concreto having regard to the stated purpose, the recording in the balance sheet as a debt owed to shareholders and the possible exclusion from the subordination pursuant to Article 2467 of the Civil Code.
For the purposes of calculating the time limit for bringing third-party revocatory opposition against an arbitral award, the discovery of fraud or collusion must be deemed to have occurred at the moment when the party has at its disposal sufficient elements to assess the existence of the fraudulent conduct, even if it is not yet in possession of all the procedural documents. Knowledge of the content of the award, where it sets out in detail the course of the arbitral proceedings, the parties' claims and the defence arguments, is sufficient to trigger the time limit referred to in Article 404(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the subsequent obtaining of procedural documents already fully described in the award itself being irrelevant.