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

04.01.2019 NL law
Partial fine reduction for Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom for abuse of dominance

Short Reads - The General Court recently clarified that to establish a margin squeeze in the case of positive margins, the Commission needs to prove the exclusionary effects of the dominant company's pricing practices. It also indicated that in cases of refusal to grant access, it is not always necessary to establish the indispensability of the access.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Walking the tightrope between data protection and EU investigations

Short Reads - Two recent publications confirm that it is possible for companies to cooperate with a European Commission investigation and still comply with the data protection rules. It is also possible for the Commission to deviate from certain data protection obligations in the interest of a competition law investigation. The tightrope between data protection and Commission investigations may not be as rigid as initially feared.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

Short Reads - The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

Read more

04.01.2019 NL law
Guess what, online branding restrictions are on the Commission's radar

Short Reads - Companies are probably aware of the Commission's eagerness to clamp down on online resale price maintenance and geo-blocking restrictions. The recent fine for vertical restraints by clothing company Guess marks a new dot on the Commission's radar. Restrictions on retailers using a supplier's brand names for online search advertising purposes are just as much a no-go.

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 – en cookieverklaring