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

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring