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

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more