Previous article

The European Court of First Instance confirms the Commission’s decision and applies the case-law on the presumption that the parent company holding 100% or almost 100% of the capital of a subsidiary exercises decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary (Akzo Nobel)

Akzo was similarly disappointed in its attempts to dissociate the parent company (Akzo Nobel NV) from liability for its subsidiaries' involvement in the monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) cartel, on which the CFI ruled on 30 September 2009 (Case T 175/05). This was unsurprising, given the ECJ ruling, though no reference to the judgment earlier that month is made. However, the case underlines just how difficult it will be to rebut the presumption that a parent company subsidiary exercises decisive influence over its 100 per cent subsidiary. MCAA is a strong organic acid used in the manufacture of detergents, adhesives, textile auxiliaries and thickeners used in foods, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. A cartel

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Simmons & Simmons (London)

Quotation

Tony Woodgate, The European Court of First Instance confirms the Commission’s decision and applies the case-law on the presumption that the parent company holding 100% or almost 100% of the capital of a subsidiary exercises decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary (Akzo Nobel), 30 September 2009, e-Competitions September 2009, Art. N° 77292

Visites 85

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues