Short Reads

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competition clause in SPA

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competit

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competition clause in SPA

01.09.2017

On 10 August 2017, the judgment of the the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) was published which held that a purchaser of all the shares in a Dutch company, Thermagas, could not rely on a non-competition clause with a duration of 5 years in a share purchase agreement (SPA). This decision quashes an earlier District Court judgment, which had allowed the purchaser to invoke this clause against one of the sellers that had gone on to continue business in the same market with a different company.

The Court of Appeal assessed the clause as an "ancillary restraint" necessary for the realisation of the concentration [see the European Commission Notice on ancillary restraints]. As the non-competition clause exceeds the maximum period allowed when transferring customer loyalty in the form of both goodwill and know-how (3 years), the Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances were present that were not foreseen in the Notice, but that may justify the 5 year duration.

Here, the Court of Appeal's reasoning diverged from the District Court. In reaching its conclusion that there were special circumstances, the District Court relied on a 2014 precedent of the same appellate court (with the same presiding judge). In that case, the Court of Appeal found that a 5 year term was acceptable considering the following circumstances: (i) a high degree of customer loyalty, (ii) a long lifespan of the products concerned, (iii) specific knowledge of the seller regarding procurement and sales channels, and (iv) the (low) speed at which that industry knowledge becomes outdated. The purchaser put similar arguments on the table in the Thermagas case, but to no avail: the Court of Appeal discarded them one by one.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge in the proceedings on the merits was likely to declare the non-competition clause in the SPA null and void. As a result, the purchaser could not rely on the Dutch statutory conversion mechanism to secure the effective application of competition law.

Whilst the outcome is not surprising, the judgment does confirm that Dutch courts are willing – even in summary proceedings – to consider whether special circumstances allow for a non-competition clause in an SPA to exceed the 3 year maximum.

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

  1. Dutch Competition Authority publishes market study into online video streaming platforms

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more