umraniye escort pendik escort
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
bodrum escort
Short Reads

It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

It's in the details: HSBC fine quashed for insufficient reasoning

03.10.2019 NL law

The General Court annulled the EUR 33.6 million fine imposed on banking group HSBC for its participation in the euro interest rates derivatives cartel. Full annulment was granted based on the Commission's failure to provide sufficiently detailed reasoning for the first step of the fine calculation, establishing the value of sales. As the value of sales could not be established in a straightforward way, the Commission used a proxy. When doing so, the Commission needs to properly explain its reasoning to allow the companies fined to understand how it arrived at the proxy. 

It is therefore advisable for companies active in industries where sales values are difficult to determine, to always double-check the depth of reasoning behind the Commission's fine calculations.

In 2016, the Commission imposed fines on HSBC, JPMorgan and Crédit Agricole for taking part in a cartel aimed at distorting the pricing of Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRDs). These are derivative financial products whose prices are linked to the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). The Euribor is established as an average of the banks' submissions, including those of HSBC. The sanctioned behaviour consisted of exchanges of information concerning the EIRDs and manipulation of the Euribor. The General Court largely agreed with the Commission on the main substantive points. However, it still annulled the fine imposed on HSBC as a result of insufficient reasoning.

The Commission's Fine Guidelines take the companies' value of sales affected by the behaviour as a starting point to reach a fine amount which reflects the economic significance of the cartel. As the financial trading industry does not generate sales in the ordinary sense, the Commission considered cash receipts received under the EIRDs as the starting point. It then applied a reduction factor which was set at a very specific level: 98.849% without, according to the Court, explaining why the reduction factor was set at this level.

The Court found that precision in establishing the reduction factor is fundamental, with the smallest change having a great impact on the fine. Additionally, because the Commission chose to find a proxy for the value of sales, it was essential that HSBC had the chance to verify whether the proxy chosen was vitiated by any error. Therefore, due to the circumstances of the case, the Commission's motivation was insufficient.

Cartel cases in which the fine calculation involves establishing a proxy for the value of sales, put an additional burden on the Commission to properly explain its motivation. In such cases, companies should double-check whether the Commission's reasoning is sufficiently detailed to enable them to verify the fine calculations.


This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of October 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:






Related news

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction in competition law damages case concerning Greek beer market

Short Reads - On 16 February 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) set aside a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (the District Court) in which the District Court declined jurisdiction over the alleged claims against Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken N.V. (Heineken), in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

12.02.2021 EU law
After the Uber case and the Airbnb case … the Star Taxi App case: focus on the question of the qualification as “Information Society Service”

Articles - Societal and digital developments are reflected in the case law of the CJEU. For several years now, European judges resolve disputes relating to digital applications and the services they provide. On 3 December 2020, they handed down a judgment in a case concerning Star Taxi App. This blog analyses the Star Taxi App case law in the light of the Uber case law and the Airbnb case law. The three judgments have in common the question of the qualification of services as Information Society Services.  

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more