Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law 1 Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law Adrian Brown Of Counsel, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Morris Schonberg Associate, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Anti-competitive practices; Cartels; EU law; Parent companies; Successor companies Introduction European Commission infringement decisions in cartel cases have increasingly tended to concern conduct (and sometimes even markets) that may be considered historic by the time the infringement decision is ultimately taken.1 Although the limitation period for the Commission to impose a fine in respect of infringing conduct is only five years,2 in respect of a continuing infringement this period only begins to run when the infringement ceases,3 and the period is paused by any action taken by the Commission or a national competition authority to investigate the infringement.4 In any event, the limitation period is only applicable to fining, and not the imposition of liability for an infringement by the Commission which is theoretically unlimited in duration.5 Furthermore, the development of the concept of the “single and continuous infringement” in the decisional-practice of the Commission, and confirmed by the EU General Court, has enabled the Commission to combine various strands of infringing conduct, sometimes over successive periods of time, into participation in a single continuing infringement, thereby preventing penalties in respect of earlier instances of infringing conduct from being time-barred.6 All this means that there may be a significant gap between the end of the infringing conduct and the date when the Commission actually takes the infringement decision.7 For instance, looking at the 13 cartel infringement decisions taken by the Commission since 2010 alone,8 the average time between the cessation of the infringement and the infringement decision, was around 5 years and 9 months,9 a not insignificant interval. Moreover, if one looks at the average time between the actual commencement of the infringement and the infringement decision, this increases to around 14 years.10 During this time there may have been significant changes in the ownership, organisation or legal form of the entities that are liable for the infringing conduct. An entity that originally committed the infringement may have been sold to another company by way of a share sale, where it may have been left intact as an operating company, or may have been simply absorbed into the acquirer, having been dissolved as a legal entity. Alternatively, the relevant business division of the entity that committed the infringement may have been sold to another company (an asset sale), meaning that the entity responsible for the infringement no longer possesses the business materials (assets and personnel) with which the infringement was committed. Such issues raise significant difficulties as a matter of practice, particularly in the merger and acquisition context, where due diligence and warranties must be carefully calibrated to adequately reflect the risk borne by each party. Speaking publicly,11 Advocate General Kokott of the Court of Justice has 1 A notable example is the Commission’s infringement decision in Case 39.605 CRT Glass on October 19, 2011 which concerned a cartel which existed during 1999–2004 in relation to cathode ray tube glass, used in traditional televisions and monitors. Most high-end production of CRT televisions and monitors had ceased by 2010, replaced by LCD flat panel technology. 2 Council Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules of competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L1/1, January 4, 2003. 3 Regulation 1/2003 art.25(2). 4 Regulation 1/2003 art.25(3). 5 Under art.7(1) of Regulation 1/2003 the Commission may make a declaratory finding of an infringement in respect of past conduct if it has a legitimate interest in doing so and on several occasions the Commission has taken an infringement decision without imposing a fine in cases where the limitation period has expired, for example: Case 37.512 Vitamins (November 21, 2001) in respect of Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals (upheld by the General Court on appeal in Sumitomo v Commission (T-22 and 23/02) [2005] E.C.R. II-4605); Case 38.337 Thread (September 14, 2005); Case 37.860 Morgan Stanley/Visa International and Visa Europe (October 3, 2007). In such cases, while the levying of a fine may be time-barred, the imposition of liability may still serve as the basis for follow-on claims in damages, as well as a basis for a fine uplift for recidivism in the case of future infringements by the same undertaking. 6 See for example, the Commission’s finding of a single and continuous infringement in Case 39.899 Gas Insulated Switchgear (January 24, 2007), upheld by the General Court in Siemens v Commission (T-110/07) [2011] E.C.R. II-477 at [236]–[255] and Siemens Österreich and VA Tech & Distribution v Commission (T-122/07-124/07) [2011] E.C.R. II-794 at [86]–[102], where the Commission contended with arguments from the parties that the cartel comprised two separate infringements. 7 Quite apart from the matter of the enforcement of fines, damages actions and consequent contribution proceedings have the potential to bite many years down the line after the infringement decision. While succession issues in respect of such actions would at first glance fall to be determined by national, rather than EU law, it is possible that EU law may well also influence the development of national laws in this area. 8 This takes into account cartel infringement decisions from January 1, 2010 to November 18, 2012. This does not include the infringement decisions in respect of Bolloré in Case 36.212 Carbonless Paper (June 23, 2010) and Mitsubishi and Toshiba in Case 39.966 Gas Insulated Switchgear (June 27, 2012), which were re-adopted by the Commission following successful challenges by these parties before the EU courts. Successful challenges and the re-adoption of infringement decisions further increase the potential for a significant “gap” between the Commission of the infringement and the ultimate imposition of liability. 9 The largest gap occurred in Case 38.511 DRAMs—around 7 years and 11 months, notwithstanding that the Commission closed the proceedings with a settlement decision. The infringement came to an end on June 15, 2002 and the Commission issued its infringement decision on May 19, 2010. 10 The largest gap occurred in Case 38.866 Animal Feed Phosphates—around 41 years and 4 months. The infringement commenced on March 19, 1969 and the Commission issued its infringement decision on July 20, 2010. 11 At the International EU Competition Law Forum, organised by Studienvereinigung Kartellrecht in Brussels, March 14, 2012. [2013] 34 E.C.L.R., Issue 1 © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors 2 European Competition Law Review highlighted this issue as one which requires greater judicial consideration, in particular cases where a purchaser of a company unearths past cartel “skeletons” after the transaction is completed. While the EU courts have developed principles to govern succession to liability in such circumstances, in two recent cases, SNIA v Commission12 and Uralita v Commission,13 the General Court has arguably applied these principles over-expansively and has extended the scope of succession to liability to the point where it may raise significant problems as a matter of legal principle and practice. This article will provide an overview of how the existing principles apply to a share sale and an asset sale, and then consider these two judgments and the problems they raise. The principles of “personal responsibility” and “economic continuity” Under the settled case-law, the EU courts have developed two main principles that govern succession to liability, the principles of “personal responsibility” and “economic continuity”. Under the principle of “personal responsibility”, liability is to be attributed to the legal person who operated the undertaking at the time that it committed the infringement. As a legal person can be held liable only for its own acts, so long as that legal person remains in existence, it retains its liability—referred to as the so-called “Anic rule”, after the case in which the principle was articulated by the Court of Justice, Commission v Anic.14 Where, however, the legal person that is liable for an infringement is no longer in existence, under the principle of “economic continuity”, the Commission may identify the “combination of physical and human elements which contributed to the commission of the infringement” and then impose liability on the legal person which has become responsible for their operation.15 The stated rationale for this latter principle is to ensure proper deterrence—the principle of economic continuity avoids the result that the undertaking committing an infringement may fail to answer for it due to the disappearance of the legal person responsible for the undertaking’s operation.16 For this reason, it has been confirmed that the principle of economic continuity applies where the entity ceases to exist, either at law or economically, since a penalty imposed on a legal person which is no longer economically active is likely to have no deterrent effect.17 This deterrence rationale has also led to exceptions to the principle of personal responsibility being applied, particularly in the case of intra-group restructuring within a group where liability has been found on the basis of economic continuity even in cases where the transferor entity has remained in existence as an economically active legal entity. These exemptions are designed to ensure the effective enforcement of competition law—if there was no possibility of imposing a penalty on an entity other than the one which committed the infringement, undertakings could escape penalties by simply changing their identity through restructurings, sales, or other legal or organisation changes.18 Two factors accorded significance in the case law are the existence of “structural links” between the transferor and transferee following the asset transfer, and whether the transferee is existing or newly-formed. Thus in Aalborg Portland v Commission, the Court of Justice pointed out that “it is true that in Commission v Anic (paragraph 145) the Court held that there can be economic continuity only where the legal person responsible for running the undertaking has ceased to exist in law after the infringement has been committed. However, that case concerned two existing and functioning undertakings one of which had simply transferred part of its activities to the other and where there was no structural link between them.”(Emphasis added).19 In that case, Aalborg was newly-formed and the structural link was a 50 per cent shareholding in the new company retained by the transferor. Similarly, in Jungbunzlauer v Commission, the General Court held (with reference to Aalborg Portland v Commission) that economic continuity applied in the context of an intra-group transfer where the transferor had retained the production activities of the relevant undertaking, but had transferred the management and governance of that undertaking to the transferee group company.20 In that case, the transferee was also newly-formed and was the sister company of the transferor.21 It appears that deviation from the principle of personal responsibility may be more likely if there is evidence of a strategy adopted for the specific purpose of avoiding 12 SNIA v Commission (T-194/06) judgment of June 16, 2011. Uralita v Commission (T-349/08) judgment of October 25, 2011. 14 Commission v Anic (C-49/92 P) [1999] E.C.R. I-4925 at [145]; see also ETI v Commission (C-280/06) [2007] E.C.R. I-10893 at [39]-[40]. 15 Enichem v Commission (T-6/89) [1991] E.C.R. II-1623 at [237]. 16 Enichem v Commission (T-6/89) [1991] E.C.R. II-1623. See also ETI v Commission, Opinion of AG Kokott at [80], where the Advocate General argues that the principle of economic continuity therefore ensures that the person held responsible is the one who gains from any profits and increases in value of the undertaking due to the cartel, and that, as the economically active new operator, this person will conduct itself in future in compliance with competition law. 17 ETI v Commission at [40]; NHM Stahlwerke v Commission (T-134/94) [1997] E.C.R. II-2293 at [135]–[137], referred to in HFB v Commission (T-9/99) [2002] E.C.R. II-1487 at [106]. 18 Hoechst v Commission (T-161/05) [2009] E.C.R. II-3555 at [51]; ETI v Commission at [41]. 19 Aalborg Portland v Commission (C-204/00 P) [2004] E.C.R. I-123 at [359]. 20 Jungbunzlauer v Commission (T-43/02) [2006] E.C.R. II-3435 at [122]–[134]. 21 In a further case, ETI v Commission, in the context of entities under the control of a public authority, the court reasoned that economic continuity may be made out where two entities, “have been subject to control by the same person within the group and have therefore, given the close economic and organisational links between them, carried out, in all material respects, the same commercial instructions.” (At [49]). 13 [2013] 34 E.C.L.R., Issue 1 © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law 3 the imposition of penalties for the infringement.22 Arguably, the two factors mentioned above, existence of ‘structural links’ between the transferor and transferee, and whether the transferee is existing or newly-formed, are aimed squarely at this point. Closely linked to the principle of personal responsibility, is the principle of “legal continuity” under which a company that “absorbs” another company by merger, also absorbs any liability held by the latter for an infringement.23 to transfer liability for an infringement cannot be relied upon against the Commission to apportion liability between companies.28 Where the transferred assets continue the infringement under the responsibility of the new owner (and the company previously responsible for those assets remains in existence), in accordance with the principle of personal responsibly, liability is only to be attributed to the new owner from the time which it acquires control over the assets. Application to a share sale and an asset sale Share Sale To illustrate the operation of these principles, we apply them below to the succession issues arising in a share sale and an asset sale: Asset Sale Where assets involved in an infringement are transferred, the company previously responsible for those assets continues to be liable as long as it remains in existence, in accordance with the principle of personal responsibility.24 It is only when that company no longer exists that the company that has acquired the assets responsible for the infringement attracts liability for the infringement on the basis of economic continuity.25 As noted above, this is however subject to potential exceptions in certain cases, particularly in the context of intra-group restructuring. Indeed, in her opinion in ETI v Commission, Advocate General Kokott proposed that even where there is no “structural link” between the transferee and the transferor, an exception to the principle of personal responsibility should be made out whenever there is an element of “abuse”, i.e. the intention of avoiding the fines for an infringement.26 The potential for future exceptions being identified therefore remains open, meaning that there remains a degree of uncertainty in this area. In addition, a separate, very limited exception exists where an acquirer makes an express written statement to the Commission in the context of the administrative procedure that liability for the past infringements of the former owner of the transferred business should be attributed to it, as was the case in Krupp Thyssen v Commission.27 On the other hand, it has been established that contractual arrangements by which a party intends Where a company that is liable for the infringement is sold to another legal person by way of share sale and remains in existence, continuing its activity as a subsidiary company, it retains its liability in accordance with the principle of personal responsibility.29 This is the case irrespective of whether or not the infringement has ceased before the transfer. However, the former parent also remains liable (usually, jointly and severally) after the transfer for the infringing conduct of the subsidiary company during the period of its ownership, should the conduct of the subsidiary be attributed to it in accordance with the rules governing parental liability.30 Where such a subsidiary company continues the infringement after the transfer and liability can be attributed to the new parent, the new parent can only be held responsible for the conduct of its subsidiary with effect from the date of acquisition.31 However, where upon a share sale the infringing company ceases to exist but is “absorbed” into the purchaser, the purchaser succeeds to the acquired company’s previous liability in accordance with the principle of legal continuity.32 The SNIA and Uralita judgments While the precise facts are complex, both of these cases concerned situations where the parent company of a subsidiary that had committed an infringement was, following the cessation of the anti-competitive conduct, “absorbed” by another company. The successor company was then held liable by the Commission for the infringement. In both cases, the Commission’s approach was upheld by the General Court on the ground that the parent company itself had been personally liable for the 22 HFB v Commission (T-9/99) [2002] E.C.R. II-1487 at [107]. Raiffieissen Zentralbank Osterreich v Commission (T-259/02-264/02 and 271/02) [2006] E.C.R. II-5196 at [326]. 24 SCA Holding v Commission (C-297/98 P) [2000] E.C.R. I-10101 at [27]–[28]. 25 Commission v Anic (C-49/92 P) [1999] E.C.R. I-4925 at [145]. 26 ETI v Commission Opinion of AG Kokott at [81]–[84]. 27 Krupp Thyssen Stainless and Acciai speciali Terni v Commission (T-45/98 and T-47/98) [2001] E.C.R. II-3757, upheld on appeal in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P [2005] E.C.R. I-6773. The acquirer will not be able to revoke such a statement after the Commission has actually imposed a fine in reliance on the statement, nor is the acquirer able to challenge the Commission’s interpretation of the statement where it already had several opportunities to do so before the limitation period for imposing a fine on the transferor expired, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH v Commission (C-352/09 P) judgment March 29, 2011 at [153]–[154]. 28 Hoechst v Commission (T-161/05) [2009] E.C.R. II-3555 at [65]. 29 Case C-279/98 P Cascades v Commission [2000] ECR I-9693 at [78]–[80]. 30 For example, Areva v Commission [2011] E.C.R. II-633 at [116]–[120]. 31 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commissions (C-286/98 P) [2000] E.C.R. I-9925 at [37]–[39]. 32 Raiffieissen Zentralbank Osterreich v Commission at [326]. 23 [2013] 34 E.C.L.R., Issue 1 © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors 4 European Competition Law Review infringement on the basis of parental liability. When the parent company was then absorbed, this liability had been transferred to the successor company. Interestingly, in both cases the successor company itself held a significant proportion of shares in the former parent company during the period of the infringement and prior to the absorption—in the SNIA case, this holding was 53–59 per cent, while in the Uralita case it was around 50 per cent. In the SNIA case, this fact was accorded significance by the General Court as “reinforcing” its conclusions.33 The court stated that the absorption should be considered part of an internal restructuring within a group of companies united by a structural link, corroborating the existence of “economic continuity”. In the Uralita case, however, the successor company’s existing shareholding in the former parent company during the period of the infringement was not mentioned as being relevant, and therefore the General Court’s conclusions in that case should be considered as standing on their own—the Commission is able to impute liability to a successor company which “absorbs” a parent company whose subsidiary commits an infringement for which it would have been liable through parental liability. This represents a significant expansion of the “absorption principle” mentioned above. While this development may seem like a straight-forward application of the existing succession rules in the context of parental liability, it clearly raises a number of difficulties both in principle and in practice. First, the rationale for parental liability is founded on the basis of personal responsibility and effective enforcement of the competition rules—that liability is to be attributed to the legal person who operates the undertaking that committed the infringement, i.e. the principal of the undertaking (the parent company), which is also most likely to ensure that in future the undertaking conducts itself in compliance with competition law.34 It is difficult to see how these reasons may apply in circumstances where the parent company has been absorbed by an unconnected purchaser which was not part of the infringing undertaking at the time of the infringement, and in circumstances where the infringing subsidiary is no longer part of the undertaking. The conclusion also appears questionable from the perspective of ensuring adequate deterrence more generally in the market (and the principle of economic continuity). Where the company directly responsible for operating the undertaking concerned—the former subsidiary—is still in existence, fining this company alone should provide sufficient deterrent effect for other market participants. This will not be a case where the anti-competitive conduct is allowed to go unsanctioned. This development also clearly raises a number of problems in practice. First, it opens up the possibility that an unconnected purchaser may acquire liability that had been imposed upon a former parent company through the Akzo Nobel presumption35 (i.e. the presumption that a parent company that has a 100 per cent shareholding (or close to 100 per cent)36 in its subsidiary, exercises decisive influence over the subsidiary and therefore may be held jointly and severally liable for its infringement). Indeed, this was the case in both SNIA and Uralita, although, as noted above, the successor entities were not unconnected, having held significant shareholdings in the former parent companies prior to their merger. Under the established case-law, the Akzo Nobel presumption is meant to be just that—a presumption only, that can be rebutted by the parent company, “adducing sufficient evidence that its subsidiary acts independently on the market.”37 Since there has yet to be a case where an exception to this presumption has been successfully pleaded, clearly an unconnected purchaser which absorbs a parent company that would have been held liable for its subsidiary’s infringement under the Akzo Nobel presumption, realistically is not going to be in a position to rebut the presumption. This adds credence to the argument that the Akzo Nobel presumption leads to a system of “strict liability”. Secondly, in the context of an actual transaction, this development significantly increases the scope of due diligence required. Purchasers of a parent or intermediate holding company will not only have to check for the involvement of that company in a cartel but also for the involvement of any of its subsidiaries (past and present). This would extend to both direct and even indirect subsidiaries, as the case-law has established that the Akzo Nobel presumption applies in both cases.38 Conclusion While the SNIA and Uralita judgments may at first glance appear like straight-forward applications of the existing succession rules in the context of parent companies, when considered more carefully, it is clear that they raise significant difficulties both as a matter of principle and practice. It would appear that, up to now, the 33 The General Court also highlighted the successor company’s ability to appoint all the directors of the former parent company’s board, as well as actual evidence of involvement in the decision-making of the parent and subsidiary companies; SNIA v Commission at [65]. 34 See the discussion in the Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-97/08 P Akzo Nobel v Commission [2009] E.C.R. I-8237 at [39]–[41]. 35 Akzo Nobel v Commission [2009] E.C.R. I-8237 at [60]–[61]. 36 See, e.g. Elf Aquitaine v Commission (T-299/08) judgment of May 7, 2011 at [55]–[56] where the General Court held that a 97% shareholding was sufficient to raise the presumption. 37 Akzo Nobel v Commission [2009] E.C.R. I-8237 at [61]. While there remains no actual case where the Commission or the EU courts on appeal have deemed that the parent company adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, the potential for doing so has been underlined by the General Court and the Court of Justice: in L’Air Liquide v Commission (T-185/06) and Edison v Commission (T-196/06) judgments of June 16, 2011 and Elf Aquitaine v Commission (C-521/09) judgment of September 29, 2011, the General Court and the Court of Justice annulled the Commission’s infringement decisions in respect of these companies for failure to state reasons as to why the detailed evidence put forward by the companies aimed at rebutting the presumption had been rejected. In Ballast Nedam Infra v Commission (T-362/06) judgment of September 27, 2012, the General Court partially annulled the Commission’s infringement decision on the ground that the Commission had not adequately indicated in the statement of objections that it intended to hold the applicant liable on the basis of the presumption, thus depriving the applicant of the ability to effectively exercise rights of defence in respect of rebutting the presumption. 38 General Quimica v Commission (C-90/09 P) [2011] E.C.R. I-1 at [84]–[89]. [2013] 34 E.C.L.R., Issue 1 © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors Widening the Net: The General Court Extends the Principle of Successor Liability in EU Competition Law 5 jurisprudential lines concerning parental liability and succession have been developed independently, without reference to each other. Combination of the two regimes can therefore lead to problematic results. Indeed the applicants in Uralita argued that it was, “wrong to combine two causes for the imputation of liability”39—this criticism has some force so long as the two regimes remain disjointed. 39 40 The applicants in SNIA have appealed the General Court’s judgment to the Court of Justice.40 While Advocate General Kokott clearly has the issue of the refinement of the succession rules on her radar and uncertainties remain to be addressed in the application of the rules, it is the interaction between the succession regime and the parental liability regime which presents the more pressing problem. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Justice will take the opportunity to lay down a more coherent approach. Uralita v Commission at [23]. The appeal was lodged on August 31, 2011 and has been assigned case number C-448/11 P. [2013] 34 E.C.L.R., Issue 1 © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors