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

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

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

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