On 6 February Advocate General Wahl published his in a preliminary ruling request concerning the Finnish asphalt cartel damages case C-724/17. The question that AG Wahl considered was whether the determination of the persons liable to pay compensation is a matter of EU law instead of national law and whether the principle of economic continuity is to be applied in determining the persons liable to pay compensation for cartel damages. The opinion of Advocate General is non-binding and the European Court of Justice can deviate from the opinion.
8.2.2019
Are M&A and Insolvency Proceedings at Risk Due to Competition Law Penalties and Damage Claims?
Related services
According to AG Wahl, in a private damages claims for cartel infringements before a national court, the persons held liable to pay compensation should be determined on the basis of EU law in order to ensure the effectiveness of the enforcement of EU competition law. If the persons liable to pay compensation differed from one Member State to another, economic operators could be treated differently, depending on the domestic jurisdiction dealing with the private law claim. From the perspective of the effective enforcement of EU competition law, leaving the determination of the persons liable for damages to the discretion of the Member States could considerably limit the injured party’s right to claim compensation. Furthermore, the application of different rules would run counter to one of the fundamental objectives of EU competition law – creating a level playing field on the internal market. This could also be an invitation to forum shopping.
When the authority or the court is imposing fines for competition infringements, the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in economic activity, irrespective of its legal status and the way in which it is financed. AG Wahl states that the determination of the persons liable to pay compensation within the context of private liability should not be determined on a different basis. Therefore, AG Wahl wishes to extend the concepts of undertaking and economic continuity in private damages proceedings.
AG Wahl stated that the principle of economic continuity is to be applied so that an individual may seek compensation from a company that has continued the economic activity of a cartel participant. If the principle of economic continuity was not applied, undertakings could escape penalties by changing their identity through restructurings, sales or other legal or organisational changes. AG Wahl claims this would jeopardise the objective of preventing competition law infringements by means of deterrent penalties. Instead, the liability should be attached to assets, rather than to a particular legal personality.
However, the Advocate General does not take the big picture into account: if the Court’s judgement follows the opinion of AG Wahl, applying economic continuity in private damage claims may have significant and unforeseeable effect for instance on mergers and acquisitions and insolvency proceedings. For example, an acquirer of assets acting in good faith could be held liable for potential private actions for damages which may not be foreseeable the time of the business purchase.
In addition, applying economic continuity in insolvency proceedings could endanger the equality of creditors. Liabilities for cartel damages could be treated as debts of the bankruptcy estate, not of the debtor. Those debts would be compensated first directly from the bankruptcy estate instead of assets subject to distribution in bankruptcy. In addition, the uncertainty of such claims could lead to lower purchase price received by bankruptcy estates seeking to sell the business operations.
Latest news
Latest references
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024
Tesi – Investment in Sisu Auto
We advised Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) in its investment in the heavy duty vehicles company Oy Sisu Auto Ab. With this investment, Tesi became an owner in the company with a share of 24.4 per cent. Sisu Auto is a pioneer in the Nordic market in the development of heavy duty vehicles. Sisu’s core competences are in the product development and production of trucks and military vehicles. Tesi is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies. The investments managed by Tesi total 2.1 billion euros.
Case published 19.8.2024