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

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Tick-tock: no reset of the appeal clock for amending Commission decision

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently upheld the General Court's order finding that metal production and recycling company Eco-Bat had submitted its appeal outside of the appeal term. Eco-Bat had relied on the term starting from the date of the European Commission's decision correcting figures for the fine calculation in the initial infringement decision.

Read more

12.04.2019 NL law
Hoogste Europese rechter bevestigt dat overheden onrechtmatige staatssteun proactief moeten terugvorderen

Short Reads - De maand maart 2019 zal vermoedelijk de juridisch handboeken ingaan als een historische maand voor het mededingings- en staatssteunrecht. Niet alleen deed het Hof van Justitie een baanbrekende uitspraak op het gebied van het verhaal van kartelschade. Het heeft in de uitspraak Eesti Pagar (C-349/17) van 5 maart 2019 belangrijke vragen opgehelderd over de handhaving van het staatssteunrecht op nationaal niveau.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
Fine liability in antitrust cases is closely scrutinised by Dutch courts

Short Reads - A parent company can be held liable for a subsidiary's anti-competitive conduct if the parent has exercised decisive influence over the subsidiary, because the two are then considered a single undertaking. This is why the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) recently found that the ACM cannot simply rely on managing partners' civil liability to determine fine liability for a limited partnership's anti-competitive conduct.

Read more

10.04.2019 BE law
Acrylamide: zijn frieten ook juridisch schadelijk voor de gezondheid?

Articles - De risico’s door de aanwezigheid van acrylamide in levensmiddelen noopten de EU tot het nemen van risicobeperkende maatregelen. Exploitanten van levensmiddelenbedrijven van bepaalde levensmiddelen (o.a. frieten, chips, koekjes, …) kregen de verplichting om tal van maatregelen te nemen.  De juridische kwalificatie van acrylamide en het regime van deze maatregelen worden in deze blog toegelicht.

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