Short Reads

General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine

General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable carte

General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine

01.08.2018 NL law

On 12 July 2018, the General Court dismissed the appeals against the fines imposed by the European Commission in the power cable cartel. The Court also confirmed the EUR 37.3 million fine levied on Goldman Sachs on the basis of its exercise of decisive influence over cable maker Prysmian through one of its funds.

Goldman Sachs nor its fund were held liable by the Commission for their direct participation in the cartel or for having knowledge of any wrongdoings of Goldman Sachs' portfolio company Prsymian. It is a well-established principle of EU competition law that parent companies can be held liable for the conduct of their subsidiaries. Moreover, where the parent company has a 100% shareholding there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over the conduct over the subsidiary.

In its appeal, Goldman Sachs disputed having exercised decisive influence, stating, among other things, that Prysmian was a pure financial investment and that for most of the relevant period its shareholding was less than 100%. The Court confirmed that the Commission was correct in applying the presumption of decisive influence to Goldman Sachs. The Court held that Goldman Sachs was in a similar situation to that of a sole owner of a subsidiary as it held all the voting rights in combination with a very high majority stake, even though it did not hold all the share capital.

The Court also held that the Commission had correctly taken account of other objective factors which supported the finding that Goldman Sachs exercised decisive influence over Prysmian, including its power to appoint members of the board of directors of Prysmian, the ability to call shareholder meetings and the role played by the directors of Goldman Sachs within the strategic committee of Prysmian.

The ruling of the Court shows how the concept of parental liability continues to expand. This case further highlights the importance for investors to ensure that their portfolio companies are compliant with competition law, even when they are considered as a pure financial investment. This becomes especially relevant where investors have large shareholdings and have rights that allow them to exercise decisive influence over the portfolio companies.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  4. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  5. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  6. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

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