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the seller regarding procurement and sales channels, and (iv) the (low) speed at which that industry knowledge becomes outdated.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

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