Short Reads

General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request

General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request

General Court confirms that the financial position of shareholders and the possibility to increase credit facilities are relevant when assessing an inability to pay request

01.07.2016 NL law

On 2 June 2016, the General Court ("GC") dismissed an appeal lodged by four companies in the Celsa-group ("GSW") against the European Commission's prestressing steel decision. The companies raised several grounds of appeal which were all rejected by the GC. Of particular interest is that the GC refused to accept the application for inability to pay by the companies.

 

If the imposition of a fine "irretrievably jeopardises the economic viability of the undertaking concerned and causes its assets to lose all their value", the Commission may reduce the fine. The four companies requested such a reduction, arguing that they were unable to pay the EUR 54 million fine and that their economic viability would be jeopardised if the fine was imposed. The Commission rejected their requests on two grounds. First of all, it considered that GSW should be able to increase its short-term credit facilities. Secondly, it found that the Celsa-group and its family owners had sufficient financial resources at their disposal, which they could use to aid GSW.

GSW appealed this decision before the GC. The GC considered that if it could be shown that GSW had opportunities to increase its credit facilities or that its shareholders possessed important financial means, the rejection of GSW's request based on inability to pay would be justified. Taking into account the non-used credit facilities, total assets, consolidated cash flow and a recent refinancing, the GC agreed with the Commission that it was possible for the companies to obtain the necessary funding or guarantees from credit institutions. Moreover, the GC considered that GSW had not submitted the information that was necessary to assess the importance of the shareholder's assets. According to the GC, this "lack of diligence" on behalf of the companies was enough  to reject their application, as it falls to the company submitting an application for inability to pay to provide the necessary factual information to the Commission.

By dismissing the appeals, the GC confirmed that the test for inability to pay requests is applied strictly. In assessing such an application many factors will be relevant, such as the financial position of the shareholders of the applicant but also the possibility for the company to obtain additional financial means via a bank credit or, for example, the issuing of shares.

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

1. Court of Justice dismisses appeals in the Calcium Carbide Cartel
2. General Court confirms illegality of non-compete clause in telecoms transaction
3. District Court of Rotterdam rejects the applicability of arbitration clauses in antitrust damages litigation
4. Update on changes in antitrust damages claims legislation in the Netherlands
5. New maximum fines for competition law infringements in the Netherlands as of 1 July 2016
6. General Court rules that an implicit and unlimited guarantee does not necessarily constitute State aid

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring