Short Reads

European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition

European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature imple

European Commission imposes record fine on Altice for premature implementation of PT Portugal acquisition

01.05.2018 NL law

On 24 April 2018, the European Commission announced that it had imposed a fine of EUR 124.5 million on Altice for acquiring control of PT Portugal before clearance by the Commission ('gun-jumping'). The fine is more than six times the amount which was previously imposed by the Commission for similar offences [see our November 2017 Newsletter for a discussion of the Marine Harvest case]. The Commission's recent enforcement actions against gun-jumping violations highlight the importance of strict competition law compliance during M&A transactions.

In February 2015, Altice notified the Commission of its plans to acquire PT Portugal. During its review, the Commission came to suspect that Altice may have breached the EU Merger Regulation by violating both the notification and the standstill obligations [see our June 2017 Newsletter]. Under the EU Merger Regulation, a merger or an acquisition should be notified to the Commission and should not be implemented unless it has been cleared.

In its press release, the Commission concluded that Altice was in a position to use its veto rights in the purchase agreement to exercise decisive influence over PT Portugal's ordinary business before clearance. Moreover, the Commission found that Altice actually exercised such influence by instructing PT Portugal on how to conduct a marketing campaign. In an earlier statement, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager had characterised Altice's behaviour as follows: "It appears that Altice had already been acting as if it owned PT Portugal. It seems that it gave instructions on how to handle commercial issues, such as contract negotiations."

The Commission has recently opened several investigations relating to potential 'gun-jumping' violations [see our August 2017 Newsletter]. Following the record fine for Altice, companies envisaging a M&A transaction are well-advised to check that veto rights in the purchase agreement do not interfere with ordinary business decisions of the target company and that information exchanges fall within the framework of a non-disclosure agreement.

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

  1. European Court of Justice provides guidance on assessing discriminatory pricing
  2. Germany did not err in extraditing an Italian citizen to the US for a competition law infringement
  3. European Commission proposes draft Regulation on online platforms and search engines
  4. District Court of Amsterdam rules on requests for pre-procedural hearings
  5. Rotterdam District Court quashes cartel fines imposed by the ACM on cold storage operators

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

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