Articles

ACM fined cold-storage companies and their executives EUR 12.5 million for breaching competition law during merger negotiations

ACM fined cold-storage companies and their executives EUR 12.5 million for breaching competition law during merger negotiations

ACM fined cold-storage companies and their executives EUR 12.5 million for breaching competition law during merger negotiations

04.04.2016 NL law

On 23 March 2016, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") released public versions of decisions adopted in 2015 in which it fined four cold-storage companies a total of EUR 12.5 million for breaching the cartel prohibition. The ACM also imposed fines on five executives, the highest of which amounted to EUR 144,000.

According to the ACM's decisions and press release, the companies engaged in merger talks between 2006 and 2009, during which they allegedly: (i) exchanged competitively sensitive information on refrigerated food storage prices and capacity utilizations rates, (ii) agreed to allocate customers and pass on price increases, and (iii) rigged bids submitted to potential customers.

In 2012, the ACM conducted dawn raids at various premises of the companies involved following information received from an informant. The companies all operated refrigerated/frozen warehousing facilities used to store goods, particularly concentrated juices and fish. The ACM's investigation concluded that during the (failed) merger negotiations, which took place over three years, the companies breached the competition rules by sharing competitively sensitive information and by committing other far-reaching "by object" infringements (e.g. sharing future capacity and highly sensitive client-specific information).

One of the undertakings, Kloosbeheer B.V., failed to receive leniency in one of the ACM decisions because the ACM considered that it could not (and did not) provide information with sufficiently "significant added value" within the meaning of the ACM leniency guidelines. Kloosbeheer, however, did receive a 10% reduction of the fine imposed for the "mitigating factor" of going well beyond its legal obligation to cooperate with the investigation. Interestingly, in another decision concerning Kloosbeheer, it was granted the benefit of a "simplified procedure" – usually reserved for settlement decisions – by agreeing to the ACM's description (and legal qualification) of the facts, the fines imposed, and liability of its directors. In this case, the ACM has taken a novel approach by adopting different types of decisions aimed at a specific undertaking in a single cartel investigation.

This case also highlights the importance of ensuring adequate safeguards are defined and put in place before engaging in merger negotiations (e.g. setting up "clean teams" during pre-merger due diligence). Any exchange of commercially sensitive information – regardless of the context in which it takes place – remains liable to violate competition law.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of April 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice annulled Commission's requests for information in cement cartel case
2.
Initial findings of Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry show widespread use of geo-blocking
3.
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal confirmed that ACM can use EU-wide turnover in calculating the fines in onion cartel case
4.
New Leniency Guidelines applicable in Belgium since 22 March 2016
5.
Belgian Constitutional Court rules that actions for antitrust damages cannot be time-barred before the final infringement decision is rendered

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring