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

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the seller regarding procurement and sales channels, and (iv) the (low) speed at which that industry knowledge becomes outdated.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

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

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

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

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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