Hledat v komentářích
Investiční doporučení
Výsledky společností - ČR
Výsledky společností - Svět
IPO, M&A
Týdenní přehledy
 

Detail - články
Parent Companies, Their Subsidiaries and Competition: How the General Court Decided an Interesting Dispute

Parent Companies, Their Subsidiaries and Competition: How the General Court Decided an Interesting Dispute

29.04.2013 10:25
Autor: Martin Vráb, KŠB

The General Court (third chamber) dealt with the conditions of imputability in a case involving a cartel agreement to which an applicant’s 70% subsidiary was a party.

At the beginning of its reasoning, the General Court reiterated that a legal entity that is not the perpetrator of an infringement may nonetheless be penalised. Thus, the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company, particularly when the subsidiary does not decide independently on its own conduct on the market but carries out its parent company’s instructions, especially with regard to the economic, organisational and legal links between those two legal entities.

The applicant claimed that although it had the potential to control the subsidiary it did not in fact exercise that control. The applicant submitted that it is an investment company that acts as a “pure financial investor” and that it does not participate in the day-to-day management of the companies in which it invests. Moreover, the applicant emphasised that the subsidiary and the applicant itself have always presented themselves as two distinct companies, with different names and logos, and that they even had separate representation during the prior administrative procedure before the European Commission.

The General Court held that, according to EU case-law, in order to impute a subsidiary’s anti-competitive conduct to its parent company, the Commission must prove that the parent company actually exerted influence over its subsidiary’s conduct. Such evidence may include the fact that the two companies were controlled by the same persons, i.e. by persons who held key functions on both company’s management boards, or the fact that the companies were bound to follow instructions issued by their single management and could not act independently on the market.

According to the General Court, when analysing a single economic entity among a number of companies forming part of a group, consideration should be given to whether the parent company influenced the subsidiary’s pricing policy, production and distribution activities, sales objectives, gross margins, sales costs, etc.

Control Was Exerted

The General Court held that throughout almost the entire period of the infringement the subsidiary’s board of directors was controlled by the applicant, since a majority of the board members were representatives of the applicant as well. It thus followed that, during the period in question, the subsidiary’s board of directors could not take any decision without the agreement of certain members who were also members of the applicant’s board of directors. The subsidiary’s board members who were members of the applicant’s board of directors and who had been chosen by the applicant were always in a position to form a majority and to take decisions without the agreement of the other members of the subsidiary’s board.

The General Court believed this to be sufficient reasoning. Accordingly, the Commission need not prove the decisive influence that the applicant exercised over its subsidiary by referring to particular decisions adopted by the subsidiary’s board. Since the subsidiary’s board of directors was, according to the company’s articles of association, its main decision-making body, and the subsidiary was effectively controlled by the applicant, the General Court could reasonably conclude that the board took all the important decisions in relation to the operation and management of the subsidiary and that those decisions were essentially taken by the applicant.

The General Court also commented on the term “pure financial investor”, which it said must be understood as referring to the case of an investor who holds shares in a company in order to make a profit but who refrains from any involvement in its management or control. That was evidently not the case with regard to the applicant.

As concerns the distinction between the business name, logo and legal representation, the General Court once again referred to EU case law and stated that one cannot conclude that a parent company does not exert decisive influence over a subsidiary simply because the subsidiary has its own representation during an administrative procedure and its own name and logo, distinct from those used by its parent company. 

Váš názor
Na tomto místě můžete zahájit diskusi. Zatím nebyl zadán žádný názor. Do diskuse mohou přispívat pouze přihlášení uživatelé (Přihlásit). Pokud nemáte účet, na který byste se mohli přihlásit, registrujte se zde.
Aktuální komentáře
16.07.2025
22:00Wall Street si přes Trumpovo zastrašování Powella připsala další zisky  
18:23Jsou americké akcie drahé, nebo jen nad svým valuačním standardem? To mohou být dvě rozdílné věci
16:55Evropská komise chce výrazně zvýšit sedmiletý rozpočet: z 1,2 na dva biliony eur
16:53Wall Street balancuje kolem včerejšího závěru po slušných datech, výsledcích a varování z technologického sektoru  
16:36Komerční banka, a.s.: Změna členů dozorčí rady KB k 16.7.2025
15:13Výsledky Bank of America: Bankám se daří těžit ze zvýšené volatility na trzích  
14:56Tradeři Goldman Sachs měli žně. Očekávání Wall Street banka nechala daleko za sebou
14:53Morgan Stanley překonala odhady, dařilo se obchodování s akciemi
13:19Naznačují americké indexy korekci?  
13:15Bank of America předčila očekávání, dařilo se tradingu i divizi poskytování úvěrů
12:42Braňo Soták: Nejsou sankce jako sankce, neschopnost ASML potvrdit růst posílá akcie dolů  
12:16Správci fondů posílají hotovost do akce, podle BofA to může být varovný signál
11:38Inflace v Británii v červnu vzrostla na 3,6 procenta, je nejvyšší od února 2024
11:26Akcie automobilky Renault prudce klesají. Firma představila nové vedení a snížila výhled
10:55V příštím roce nemusíme růst, varuje ASML. Akcie padají o 7 %
10:34Bloomberg: Ellison sesadil Zuckerberga z pozice druhého nejbohatšího člověka
10:16Němečtí odborníci navrhují solidární daň pro baby boomery mířící do důchodu
9:52Ceny v průmyslu klesají, zemědělci a potravináři dále zdražují
8:57Rozbřesk: Signál a šum v americké červnové inflaci
8:46Výsledky dodala ASML, sezóna bude pokračovat v americkém finančním sektoru. Evropa zahájí ztrátově  

Související komentáře
    Nejčtenější zprávy dne
    Nejčtenější zprávy týdne
    Nejdiskutovanější zprávy týdne
    Kalendář událostí
    ČasUdálost
    Abbott Laboratories (06/25 Q2, Bef-mkt)
    General Electric Co (06/25 Q2, Bef-mkt)
    Novartis AG (06/25 Q2, Bef-mkt)
    PepsiCo Inc (06/25 Q2, Bef-mkt)
    US Bancorp (06/25 Q2, Bef-mkt)
    6:30Nordea Bank Abp (06/25 Q2)
    7:00ABB Ltd (06/25 Q2)
    7:00EQT AB (03/25 Q1)
    7:00Volvo Car AB (06/25 Q2)
    7:20Volvo AB (06/25 Q2)
    7:30Evolution AB (06/25 Q2)
    14:30USA - Index filadelfského Fedu
    14:30USA - Maloobchodní tržby, m/m
    14:30USA - Nové žádosti o dávky v nezam.
    22:00Interactive Brokers Group Inc (06/25 Q2)
    22:01Netflix Inc (06/25 Q2)