Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

01.02.2017 EU law

On 30 January 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam upheld the ACM's decision to impose a fine on investment firm Bencis for an infringement committed by its portfolio company Meneba. In 2014, the ACM imposed fines on three investment firms for the involvement of one of their (former) portfolio companies in an alleged cartel on the Dutch flour market, including Bencis that received a fine of EUR 1,3 million [see our January 2015 Newsletter]. Only Bencis appealed the ACM's decision.
 

The Court agreed with the ACM that the conduct of Meneba could be attributed to its controlling shareholders on the basis of the parental liability doctrine. Under this doctrine, shareholders can be held liable if they can exercise decisive influence over their shareholdings and de facto do exercise this influence or are assumed to have done so during the period of an infringement. The Court confirmed that the relevant question is whether the portfolio companies acted independently or whether the investment firm exercised decisive influence. In this case, the Court agreed with the ACM's decision that Bencis exercised decisive influence over Meneba on the basis of the economic, organizational and legal links. 

The judgment confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of their portfolio companies, even in the absence of knowledge that these entities acted in an anti-competitive manner. Earlier in 2014, the European Commission fined Goldman Sachs EUR 37.3 million for the alleged involvement of one of its portfolio companies in an infringement on the market for high voltage cables. Former Commissioner Almunia stated at the time that investment companies have the same responsibility for compliance with competition rules as corporates and that they should take a careful look at the compliance culture of the companies they invest in. The District Court of Rotterdam has now confirmed that this approach also applies in Dutch competition law. 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case
2. Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments
3. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel
4. General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time

Team

Related news

02.01.2018 EU law
Court of The Hague confirms that the ACM can copy mobile phones during an inspection

Short Reads - On 22 November 2017, the District Court of The Hague dismissed a legal challenge that was brought against the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) in preliminary relief proceedings. In the course of an inspection, the ACM had made a copy of (virtually) all data on the business mobile phones of six employees who worked for the company subject to the inspection. The Court ruled that the ACM was permitted to do so.

Read more

02.01.2018 EU law
Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms

Short Reads - On 6 December 2017, the Court of Justice rendered its much anticipated judgment in a dispute between a supplier of luxury cosmetics (Coty) and one of its authorised resellers. The central question was whether Coty is allowed under the competition rules to forbid its resellers to sell Coty products over third party internet platforms with visible logos (like eBay or Amazon).

Read more

19.12.2017 EU law
L’arrêté wallon portant conditions sectorielles des parcs d'éoliennes a été annulé par le Conseil d’Etat!

Articles - Trois ans et demi après avoir fait l’objet d’un recours en annulation et après un détour préjudiciel à la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne, le Conseil d’Etat a finalement annulé l’arrêté wallon fixant les conditions sectorielles s’appliquant aux parcs éoliens. Cette décision ne créera cependant pas le séisme annoncé. Le Conseil d’Etat a, en effet, décidé de maintenir définitivement les effets de l'arrêté tant pour le passé que pendant les trois prochaines années.

Read more

02.01.2018 EU law
Court of Justice dismisses appeal by Telefónica on non-compete clause in telecoms transaction

Short Reads - On 13 December 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal brought by Telefónica against a judgment of the General Court (GC) regarding a non-compete agreement [see our July 2016 Newsletter]. The judgment confirms the finding of the GC that the non-compete clause agreed upon between Telefónica and Portugal Telecom (PT) amounted to a market sharing agreement with the object of restricting competition.

Read more

07.12.2017 BE law
Décision Inédite de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne en matière de protection de l’environnement : menace de sanctions financières pour la Pologne.

Articles - Dans son ordonnance du 20 novembre 2017, la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne a ordonné, sous astreinte, à la Pologne de cesser immédiatement les opérations de gestion forestière active dans la forêt de Białowieża. Cette ordonnance sort de l’ordinaire parce qu’elle contient des mesures provisoires mais également parce qu’elle est assortie de sanctions financières. Ces deux aspects sont pourtant des gages de l’efficacité du contrôle de la Cour devant laquelle la procédure au fond. L’impact de cette ordonnance va donc bien au-delà du seul cas de la forêt de Białowieża en Pologne.  

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy