Short Reads

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competition clause in SPA

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competit

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rules on duration of a non-competition clause in SPA

01.09.2017 NL law

On 10 August 2017, the judgment of the the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) was published which held that a purchaser of all the shares in a Dutch company, Thermagas, could not rely on a non-competition clause with a duration of 5 years in a share purchase agreement (SPA). This decision quashes an earlier District Court judgment, which had allowed the purchaser to invoke this clause against one of the sellers that had gone on to continue business in the same market with a different company.

The Court of Appeal assessed the clause as an "ancillary restraint" necessary for the realisation of the concentration [see the European Commission Notice on ancillary restraints]. As the non-competition clause exceeds the maximum period allowed when transferring customer loyalty in the form of both goodwill and know-how (3 years), the Court of Appeal considered whether special circumstances were present that were not foreseen in the Notice, but that may justify the 5 year duration.

Here, the Court of Appeal's reasoning diverged from the District Court. In reaching its conclusion that there were special circumstances, the District Court relied on a 2014 precedent of the same appellate court (with the same presiding judge). In that case, the Court of Appeal found that a 5 year term was acceptable considering the following circumstances: (i) a high degree of customer loyalty, (ii) a long lifespan of the products concerned, (iii) specific knowledge of the seller regarding procurement and sales channels, and (iv) the (low) speed at which that industry knowledge becomes outdated. The purchaser put similar arguments on the table in the Thermagas case, but to no avail: the Court of Appeal discarded them one by one.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge in the proceedings on the merits was likely to declare the non-competition clause in the SPA null and void. As a result, the purchaser could not rely on the Dutch statutory conversion mechanism to secure the effective application of competition law.

Whilst the outcome is not surprising, the judgment does confirm that Dutch courts are willing – even in summary proceedings – to consider whether special circumstances allow for a non-competition clause in an SPA to exceed the 3 year maximum.

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

  1. Dutch Competition Authority publishes market study into online video streaming platforms

Team

Related news

10.07.2018 EU law
Hof van Justitie EU oordeelt over reikwijdte 'beroepsgeheim' financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens

Articles - In een arrest van 19 juni 2018 oordeelt de Grote kamer van het Hof van Justitie EU over de reikwijdte van het 'beroepsgeheim' van financiële toezichthouders voor bedrijfsgegevens. Het hof oordeelt dat de informatie die zich in het toezichtsdossier bevindt niet onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwelijk van aard is en bijgevolg onder het beroepsgeheim van de toezichthouder valt. Gegevens die mogelijk commerciële geheimen zijn geweest, worden in beginsel geacht niet meer actueel en dus niet langer geheim te zijn, wanneer die gegevens ten minste vijf jaar oud zijn.

Read more

02.07.2018 EU law
General Court delivers judgments on the scope of dawn raid decisions

Short Reads - On 20 June 2018, the General Court rendered its judgment in two connected appeals submitted by České dráhy, the Czech Railways Operator, challenging two dawn raid decisions by the European Commission. Based on arguments concerning the scope of the investigation, the Court annulled in part the first dawn raid decision and fully upheld the second dawn raid decision.

Read more

29.06.2018 EU law
Un dossier de soumission imparfait peut-il être rectifié par le paiement d’une amende ?

Articles - Dans l’arrêt du 28 février 2018, la Cour de justice donne son avis sur la possibilité pour un soumissionnaire de rectifier, pendant la phase de sélection et moyennant paiement d’une amende, son dossier de soumission imparfait par un ajout et/ou commentaire. La Cour précise que cette mesure n’est, en principe, valable que si la nature de l’irrégularité constatée permet une rectification ultérieure et que le montant de l’amende est proportionnel à l’importance de l’irrégularité constatée. 

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