umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
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

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more