30.1.2019

Stora Enso – Supreme Court Dismissed Metsähallitus’ Application for Leave to Appeal in the Roundwood Case

The Finnish Supreme Court rendered a decision on 29 January 2019 in which it dismissed Metsähallitus’ application for leave to appeal in an antitrust damages trial where Metsähallitus claimed damages from Stora Enso Oyj, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on a competition infringement on the Finnish roundwood market.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that the case has been finally resolved. The forestry companies are not obligated to pay Metsähallitus damages due to the competition infringement.

Metsähallitus originally claimed damages amounting to nearly 283 million euros jointly and severally from the forestry companies due to the alleged undercharge paid by the forestry companies for roundwood during 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its judgment of 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s judgement to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, which rendered its judgment on 21 May 2018. The Court of Appeal did not change the District Court’s judgment, dismissed Metsähallitus’ appeal and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs also in the Court of Appeal in full. With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal’s judgement is now final.

The Helsinki District Court dismissed damages claims by a group of Finnish private forest owners and a group of Finnish municipalities against the forestry companies in relation to the same competition restriction in its judgements of 2017. These judgements have gained legal force.

Castrén & Snellman successfully represented Stora Enso in every stage of the trials.  

This is the largest antitrust damages case ever tried in Finland. Read more about the earlier stages of the case.

Latest references

We successfully represented Stora Enso Oyj in an extensive antitrust damages trial in which Metsähallitus claimed a capital amount of nearly 125 million euros in damages jointly and severally from Finnish forestry companies Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on the forestry companies allegedly having purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices in 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its entirety on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, which upheld the District Court’s decision. Metsähallitus filed its claim against the forestry companies in March of 2011, so this exceptionally extensive case took over seven years before the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment. Outset In its final decision from 2009, the Market Court found that Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene and Metsäliitto Cooperative had exchanged information on the Finnish roundwood market during 1997–2004 in a manner prohibited by the Competition Restrictions Act. In its follow-on damages claim, Metsähallitus alleged that the forestry companies had purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices during and after the competition infringement found by the Market Court. Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim by a unanimous decision on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs of 8.5 million euros from hearing the case in the District Court in full. Metsähallitus appealed the District Court’s decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal, Metsähallitus primarily claimed a capital amount of nearly 125 million euros in damages jointly and severally from the forestry companies for the roundwood purchases allegedly made from Metsähallitus below market prices. Metsähallitus’ secondary claims were separate based on the roundwood transactions it had made with each defendant company. The secondary claim against Stora Enso amounted to approximately 68 million euros, which covered over half of the total amount claimed by Metsähallitus. In addition to the capital amounts of the damages claim, Metsähallitus claimed profit and penalty interest, which increased the amount of Metsähallitus’ overall claim significantly. During the trial, Metsähallitus had reduced its claims substantially. The initial amount claimed jointly and severally by Metsähallitus at the District Court totalled nearly 283 million euros. However, during the District Court proceedings, Metsähallitus specified its claims and jointly and severally claimed a total amount of approximately 159 million euros. At the Court of Appeal, Metsähallitus further reduced its claims by approximately 34 million euros, since this amount of the claims was found to be statute barred based on Supreme Court ruling KKO 2016:11. This Supreme Court’s preliminary ruling concerning the statute of limitation of compensation debt was issued in another trial concerning the same competition infringement. We also successfully represented Stora Enso in this trial. Results The Helsinki Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in the matter on 21 May 2018. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision and dismissed Metsähallitus’ appeal and claim. The Court of Appeal also obligated Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs from hearing the case in the Court of Appeal in full. The forestry companies’ legal costs in the Court of Appeal were approximately 4 million euros in total. The Court of Appeal was presented essentially with the same evidence as the District Court. The evidence on the alleged harm from the competition infringement was very extensive and consisted of both factual evidence as well as a considerable amount of expert evidence regarding the roundwood market and economic analyses. The Court of Appeal accepted the position taken by Stora Enso and the other forestry companies and unanimously dismissed Metsähallitus’ claims. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence in detail and for the most part in the same manner as the District Court. Based on the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that Metsähallitus had not produced sufficient evidence to prove that Metsähallitus would have suffered damage in the delivery sales between Metsähallitus and the forestry companies due to the violation of the Act on Competition Restrictions. The damages trial between Metsähallitus and the forestry companies is one of the largest damages cases related to a competition infringement ever tried in Finland.
Case published 1.6.2018
We successfully represented Stora Enso Oyj in an extensive damages trial in which Metsähallitus claimed a capital amount of nearly 160 million euros in damages jointly and severally from Finnish forestry companies Stora Enso, UPM-Kymmene Oyj and Metsäliitto Cooperative based on the forestry companies allegedly having purchased roundwood from Metsähallitus below market prices in 1997–2005. The Helsinki District Court dismissed Metsähallitus’ claim in its entirety on 22 June 2016 and ordered Metsähallitus to compensate the forestry companies’ legal costs in full. Metsähallitus filed its claim against the forestry companies in March of 2011, so this exceptionally large case took over five years in the court of first instance.
Case published 29.6.2016
VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026
We advised NoHo Partners Plc on the issuance of EUR 50 million senior secured floating rate notes. The notes have a tenor of four years and mature on 10 September 2030. The notes bear interest at a rate of three-month EURIBOR plus a margin of 4.375 per cent. per annum. The notes were allocated to a mix of domestic and international investors. We also advised NoHo Partners on the negotiation of its new senior facilities agreement. The facilities agreement comprises a EUR 60,000,000 term loan facility, a EUR 10,000,000 capex facility and a EUR 27,000,000 revolving credit facility. “We are delighted by the interest investors have shown in the company’s Notes, which reflects confidence in our strategy. The successful issuance of the Notes, together with the new loan agreement, extends the maturity profile of our financing and enables the company to continue executing its growth strategy going forward. I would like to thank all investors for their participation, as well as our partner bank for the excellent execution of the Notes issuance”, says Jarno Suominen, CEO of NoHo Partners. OP Corporate Bank plc acted as the sole lead manager and bookrunner for the issue of the notes. NoHo Partners Plc is a Finnish group established in 1996, and it specialises in restaurant services being the creative innovator of the Northern European restaurant market. The company was listed in Nasdaq Helsinki in 2013 becoming the first Finnish listed restaurant company, and it has continued to grow strongly throughout its history. NoHo Partners’ vision is to be the leading restaurant operator in Northern Europe.
Case published 4.9.2026