Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

District Court of Rotterdam confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of portfolio companies

01.02.2017 NL law

On 30 January 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam upheld the ACM's decision to impose a fine on investment firm Bencis for an infringement committed by its portfolio company Meneba. In 2014, the ACM imposed fines on three investment firms for the involvement of one of their (former) portfolio companies in an alleged cartel on the Dutch flour market, including Bencis that received a fine of EUR 1,3 million [see our January 2015 Newsletter]. Only Bencis appealed the ACM's decision.
 

The Court agreed with the ACM that the conduct of Meneba could be attributed to its controlling shareholders on the basis of the parental liability doctrine. Under this doctrine, shareholders can be held liable if they can exercise decisive influence over their shareholdings and de facto do exercise this influence or are assumed to have done so during the period of an infringement. The Court confirmed that the relevant question is whether the portfolio companies acted independently or whether the investment firm exercised decisive influence. In this case, the Court agreed with the ACM's decision that Bencis exercised decisive influence over Meneba on the basis of the economic, organizational and legal links. 

The judgment confirms that investment firms may be held liable for conduct of their portfolio companies, even in the absence of knowledge that these entities acted in an anti-competitive manner. Earlier in 2014, the European Commission fined Goldman Sachs EUR 37.3 million for the alleged involvement of one of its portfolio companies in an infringement on the market for high voltage cables. Former Commissioner Almunia stated at the time that investment companies have the same responsibility for compliance with competition rules as corporates and that they should take a careful look at the compliance culture of the companies they invest in. The District Court of Rotterdam has now confirmed that this approach also applies in Dutch competition law. 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice confirms Commission's approach in its first hybrid settlement case
2. Court of Justice clarifies rules on evidence in bathroom fittings cartel judgments
3. Court of Justice confirms the fine imposed on Toshiba and Panasonic in the cathode ray tubes cartel
4. General Court awards damages for failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time

Team

Related news

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

08.01.2019 EU law
Belgium's Energy & Climate Plan - What is the legislative framework for climate policy in Belgium?

Articles - On 19 December 2018, Belgium adopted the first version of the National Energy & Climate Plan, which is a compilation of three individual climate plans from each of Belgium’s regions. It contains specific measures aiming to reduce CO2 emissions in Belgium by 35% by 2030 and to increase the share of renewable energy to 18.3%. The Plan will be submitted to the European Commission and, at the same time, presented to the population, stakeholders, parliaments, and neighboring countries.

Read more

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

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