Short Reads

General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure

General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control proced

General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure

01.11.2017 NL law

On 26 October 2017, the General Court (GC) dismissed an appeal lodged by Harvest Marine, a Norwegian seafood company, against a EUR 20 million fine imposed by the European Commission. The fine was imposed on Harvest Marine in 2014 for implementing its acquisition of Norwegian salmon producer Morpol before obtaining the required clearance from the Commission under the EU merger control rules, also referred to as "gun jumping" [see our August 2014 Newsletter].

The acquisition of Morpol, at that time a listed company, took place in three steps. Firstly, Harvest Marine acquired 48.5% of the share capital in Morpol from two legal entities controlled by Morpol's founder in November 2012. Secondly, this acquisition triggered a mandatory public bid for the remaining outstanding shares in Morpol resulting in a 87.1% shareholding in March 2013. Thirdly, the purchase was completed on 12 November 2013 followed by de-listing of Morpol. Even though informal contact took place between Harvest Marine and the Commission starting three days after closing of the December 2012 transaction, the concentration was not formally notified until 9 August 2013.

Central to this case is Harvest Marine's argument that it could rely on the specific exemption from the standstill obligation for public bid situations under Article 7(2) of the EU Merger Regulation. Pursuant to this provision, the general standstill obligation does not apply to a public bid or a series of transactions admitted to trading on a regulated market by which control is acquired from various sellers if (i) the concentration is notified to the Commission without delay and (ii) the acquirer does not exercise the voting rights attached to the shares.

The GC rejected this argument. The GC held that the decisive event for notification of the concentration as well as the standstill obligation is the acquisition of control in the formal sense rather than factual exercise of this control. In this case, the GC found that de facto sole control had already been acquired after the first purchase in December 2012, "by means of single transaction and from just one seller"– even though the formal sellers had been two separate legal entities – leading to this situation falling outside the scope of Article 7(2) of the EU Merger Regulation. The GC confirmed that a minority shareholder, like Harvest Marine after the December 2012 transaction, could be considered to have de facto sole control based on past attendance at Morpol's shareholders' meeting. Furthermore, the GC found that the three-step acquisition did not constitute a single concentration.

The GC sanctioned the Commission's approach that Harvest Marine's failure to notify and its breach of the standstill obligation were two separate infringements justifying two separate fines in a single fining decision.

This judgment sheds light on the triggering event for notification of public deals that are structured in several phases. It shows that a purchaser acquiring a minority shareholding conferring negative sole control from a single seller should observe the notification and associated standstill obligations.

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

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

24.09.2021 EU law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”; (2) alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new term of use

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present two interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) a judgment of the CJEU considering that the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”, and (2) an alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new terms of use.

Read more

09.09.2021 BE law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) Parliamentary initiatives about cyber attacks; (2) ‘Zero tariff’ options before the CJEU; and (3) Council of State, GDPR and encryption

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present three interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) Parliamentary initiatives to tackle cyber attacks (2) "Zero tariff" options and open internet access do not mix! (3) Council of State, GDPR and encryption: validation of a decision of the Flemish Authorities

Read more

26.08.2021 EU law
Facebook/Belgian DPA: Landmark ruling on cross-border enforcement under the GDPR

Short Reads - On 15 June 2021, the CJEU delivered an important judgment on the one-stop-shop mechanism. While the CJEU reinforced that the lead supervisory authority is the sole interlocutor in cross-border processing operations, it also contributed to the effective enforcement of the GDPR by reiterating the conditions under which supervisory authorities other than the lead supervisory authority can bring enforcement actions against such processing operations.

Read more

13.09.2021 NL law
Adopting the new Standard Contractual Clauses to secure international personal data transfers

Short Reads - Recently, the European Commission issued an implementing decision on standard new contractual clauses (“SCCs”) for the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Economic Area. Organisations need to use the new SCCs from 27 September 2021 and onwards. Transitional periods apply for existing international data transfer agreements. To meet their obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation, organisations need to make the appropriate changes in time.

Read more