The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Country desks feature Dentons lawyers in one jurisdiction with a particular focus or experience in another jurisdiction.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
Dentons named as one of Stonewall's Top 100 Employers for third year in a row
Dentons, for the third year in a row, has been ranked as a Stonewall Top 100 Employer in the UK, placing 58th in the rankings for 2018.
The Gaming industry in South Africa
Since 2013 the video game industry has been competing against the film industry, growing its global revenues and job creation each year.
GDPR and the Morrisons case: why data security is the hot topic every employer should be concerned about
The GDPR, described as the biggest ever overhaul of data protection regulations, is arriving on 25 May 2018, it is now more important than ever to check that your organisation is taking appropriate steps to protect the data.
Using documents for a collateral purpose: permitted or prohibited?
There has been a recent spate of cases concerned with the prohibition on the collateral use of documents in litigation.
EU Court: (former) French and German tax anti-abuse rules not in line with EU law
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued two important judgments regarding abuse presumptions in relation to dividend distributions by French and German companies to parent companies resident in other EU Member States.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
With 125+ locations in 50+ countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
Dentons wins six awards at the Islamic Finance News Awards
Dentons' Banking and Finance team has advised on six award-winning deals in the IFN Awards Deals of the Year 2017, announced last month.
Partner Amanda Jones appointed employment judge in Scotland
Dentons is pleased to announce that UK Employment partner Amanda Jones has been appointed to the panel of judges of Employment Tribunals in Scotland.
Dentons names Donald A. Hammett Jr. as Dallas managing partner
Dentons, the leading global law firm, today announces the appointment of Donald A. Hammett Jr. to managing partner of its Dallas office.
This newsletter relates to the Competition news from Paris in July-August 2014.
A series of judgments recently handed down by national and European authorities and courts has recalled the high financial consequences which may be borne by companies which have failed to notify and have implemented their merger without authorization from the competent competition authority.
For the record, the Commission can impose fines of up to 10 percent of the total turnover of the companies concerned. In France, the fine imposed by the Competition Authority can be as much as five percent of the turnover recorded by the buyer in France, increased by, as the case may be, the turnover recorded by the target in France during the same period. These sanctions are incurred even if the transaction is later authorized by the competent authorities. This implies that companies must evaluate whether their transaction requires a control by competition authorities, which can sometimes be complex, especially when acquiring a minority shareholding.
The Norwegian salmon producer, Marine Harvest, suffered a bitter experience in this respect after having failed to notify the acquisition of 48.5 percent of shares in Morpol which gave it, according to the Commission, a de facto exclusive control of the target. Following the transaction, Marine Harvest had a stable majority during shareholders’ meetings, due to the broad distribution of remaining shares and the past attendance rates at these meetings. Marine Harvest, which had completed this transaction eight months before giving notice, was therefore fined €20 million on July 23, 2014. To fix the amount of this fine, the Commission took into account the fact that Marine Harvest is a large European company which could not be unaware of merger control rules. Moreover, it ruled that the offense was particularly serious as the transaction had raised serious competition issues. However, the fact that Marine Harvest had not exercised its voting rights in the target after having acquired control thereof was considered as an extenuating circumstance.
The circumstances of this case cannot be mentioned without recalling another of the Commission’s decisions, handed down in 2009 since upheld by the European General Court and then the Court of Justice of the European Union on July 3, 2014. The case concerned Electrabel which was fined €20 million for having carried out a merger before obtaining authorization. Electrabel had increased its shareholding in the target to 49.95 percent of the capital and 47.92 percent of voting rights and only gave notice of the transaction four years later. The Commission had decided, in accordance with the idea of de facto exclusive control by a minority shareholder, that a sustainable change of control had taken place following this acquisition, even though the transaction did not give Electrabel the majority of voting rights in the target.
Finally, as the Conseil d’Etat confirmed in a decision dated July 16, 2014 concerning a transaction not notified by the Castel group, breach of the obligation to give notice of a merger constitutes, in itself and whether the transaction has anti-competitive effects or not, a serious breach and cannot be considered a mere failure to notify. The Conseil d’Etat thus dismissed the application for a priority preliminary ruling on the issue of constitutionality according to which the sanction provided by the Commercial Code for failure to notify was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense.
Cegedim, in a dominant position on the market of medical information databases intended for pharmaceutical laboratories, was heavily sanctioned by the French Competition Authority on July 8, 2014, for having implemented discriminatory practices against its competitor on the related market of client management software use for the pharmaceutical industry.
In this case, Cegedim was refusing to sell its database, called “One Key”, to laboratories using the management software commercialized by Euris, whereas it agreed to sell the database in question to those using competing software. This refusal was justified by the existence of a dispute for infringement initiated against Euris.
Following a complaint lodged by Euris, the Authority first examined whether “One Key” was an essential infrastructure whose access should be granted to a competitor’s clients.
Although the Authority found that, from an economic standpoint, this database was difficult to replicate, at least in the short term, it refused to consider it as an essential infrastructure on the ground that it was not indispensable. It was demonstrated that some laboratories function with their own databases considered as alternative solutions, even if these alternatives are far less efficient.
The Authority then examined whether Cegedim’s discriminatory practice could be justified by Euris’ allegedly unfair behavior. On this point, it reaffirmed its position adopted in previous decisions according to which the legitimate protection of a company’s interests does not justify using anticompetitive practices, such as the discriminatory refusal to sell by a company in a dominant position. The only option for Cegedim to protect itself was to bring a legal action before the competent authorities.
This abusive treatment suffered by Euris caused it to lose 70 percent of its clientele and any opportunity to develop itself on the market. In addition, the choice of client management software was limited on the market to the laboratories’ detriment.
Given the duration of the offense (six years), the seriousness of the facts and the damage to the economy, the Authority imposed a €5.7 million fine on Cegedim and sent a strong message to companies occupying a dominant position on the market: although refusal to sell is no longer prohibited per se since 1996, it is still punishable when it is discriminatory.
In a decision rendered on July 24, 2014, the French Competition Authority imposed a €1.7 million fine on Société Nouvelle des Yaourts de Littée (SNYL) on the grounds that it had abused its dominant position on the market of ultra-fresh products in the French West Indies by making disparaging comments concerning the dairy products of one of its closest competitors, Laiterie de Saint-Malo.
What is worth noting in this case is that the investigation was launched after SNYL complained to the DGCCRF (French General Directorate for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control) that its competitor Malo did not comply with certain applicable regulations. The Authority then examined the case and found that SNYL had tried to weaken its competitor by making comments to professionals so as to give rise to suspicion regarding the freshness of Malo’s products, basing itself on bacteriological analysis results devoid of any scientific objectivity. SNYL also alleged non-compliance with eat-by-dates whereas the practice in issue was still tolerated.
This disparagement policy resulted in Malo’s exclusion from the trade union Syndifrais and the delisting of Malo products in one of the local stores, due to the distributors’ sensitivity to a health risk.
This case shows that complaining about a competitor for alleged regulatory breaches should only be considered if the dominant company is irreproachable in the comments it makes in other circumstances on the market about the same competitor …
The URL of this tweet is below. Copy it to easily share with friends.
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more