Short Reads

Commission reduced EURIBOR cartel fine imposed on Société Générale by EUR 218 million

Commission reduced EURIBOR cartel fine imposed on Société Générale by EUR 218 million

Commission reduced EURIBOR cartel fine imposed on Société Générale by EUR 218 million

02.05.2016 NL law

On 6 April 2016, the European Commission announced that it had reduced the fine imposed on Société Générale for its participation in the Euro interest rate derivatives cartel from EUR 445.9 million to EUR 227.7 million. The fine, which was imposed by the Commission in 2013 using the cartel settlement procedure, was modified to reflect the corrected value of sales provided by Société Générale in February 2016.

In December 2013, the Commission imposed fines of EUR 1.71 billion on eight international banks for manipulation of interest rate derivatives denominated in Euros (EURIBOR) and Japanese Yen (JPY LIBOR). Société Générale received a fine of EUR 445.9 million for its involvement in the cartel related to EURIBOR. The Commission concluded the case under the EU settlement procedure.   

Undertakings can benefit from a 10% fine reduction and a less time-consuming procedure if they agree to settle with the Commission. Although settlement decisions can be appealed to the EU courts, the Commission expected this to be unlikely when introducing the settlement procedure. This is mainly because, after settlement discussions, parties must acknowledge their liability for the infringement as well as its main facts and legal assessment. Furthermore, a settlement submission must, among other things, contain an indication of the maximum amount of the fine the undertaking would accept and the party's confirmation that it has had sufficient opportunity to make its views known and it does not envisage requesting further access to the Commission's file.

When Société Générale appealed the EURIBOR settlement decision in 2014, it was the first settling party to appeal a decision to the General Court. Société Générale based its appeal on the grounds that the Commission had miscalculated the value of sales, which is the basis for the calculation of the fine. According to Société Générale, the sales values adopted by the Commission in the contested decision did not accurately reflect the position of the banks on the market during the infringement period. In February 2016, Société Générale provided the Commission with revised data to be used for a re-calculation of the fine.

When the Commission announced that it would reduce the fine on the basis of the corrected figures, Société Générale withdrew its appeal against the settlement decision. By using the same methodology used in its 2013 decision, the Commission reduced the fine on Société Générale by almost half of the original amount to EUR 227.7 million.

The case shows that providing accurate turnover data during an investigation is essential to ensure a correct level of the fine. In settlement procedures in particular, where parties are guided through the evidence and do not have access to all the documents supporting the case, there is a lack of insight into the methodology used for calculating the fines imposed on all of the parties concerned. This makes it even more important to ensure the turnover figures submitted are accurate and errors do not need to be corrected during lengthy appeal proceedings.

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

1. Commission publishes commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in pay-TV investigation
2. ACM clarifies that a party cannot object to the fine imposed on another addressee of the decision

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more