1 / 11

Inability to Pay

Inability to Pay. Dirk VAN ERPS Head of Unit Cartels II ITP Project Manager Madrid, 5 July 2013. Overview. Point 35 Fines GL: strict criteria Deepened and intensified review of ITP applications since 2009

amos
Télécharger la présentation

Inability to Pay

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inability to Pay Dirk VAN ERPS Head of Unit Cartels II ITP Project Manager Madrid, 5 July 2013

  2. Overview • Point 35 Fines GL: strict criteria • Deepened and intensified review of ITP applications since 2009 • Almunia/Lewandowski Information note of June 2010 clarifies practice – public document • 43 pre decision applications – 13 granted : reductions between 25% and 95%

  3. The procedure • Possibility mentioned in SO / Oral Hearing • but when to start? • Request by legal entity – grouped by undertaking • Standard questionnaire (Art. 18 RFI) • Several follow-up queries – resource intensive (team of 5) • Individual reasoning in decision only accessible to undertaking • Other addressees: general methodology part + individual name of company and outcome • General public: general methodology part + number of companies and outcome

  4. The methodology I • Key criterion: will the Commission’s fine cause the company’s bankruptcy (technically: ‘irretrievably jeopardise the economic viability of the undertaking’) • Burden of proof on company to show this with a sufficient degree of probability • Company unaware of precise fine

  5. The methodology II • Typical analysis: start from ‘infringing subsidiary’, go to ‘liable parent’, continue with ‘shareholders: majority or minority; legal entities or private individuals’ • Financial statements analysis and cash-flow review: liquidity, solvability, profitability • Review of relationships with shareholders and banks

  6. Methodology is evolving • cash availability vs cash requirements • ability to assist vs interest to assist for shareholders • ideal: “working capital review” – realistic? • company “going concern” • “assets losing significant value”

  7. Issues • Not an exact science BUT an expression of Commission discretion based on probabilities • Alliance of interests of all those concerned (undertaking, shareholders, banks) to have the Commission fine reduced • New source of litigation (appeal, interim measures, post-decision rejection letters)

  8. Post-decision ITP: methodology • Original decision “new methodology” • starting trigger: significant worsening? • Original decision “old methodology” • would we have granted sth under “new methodology” • passing of time

  9. Post-decision ITP: issues • No “free insurance” against problems • Expected to die out in view of refined policy in place • Successful applications expected to be quite exceptional: 1 granted Prym; 7 rejected • Go for “interim measures” instead of appeal

  10. Challenges • Commission discretion vs detailed reasoning • Creative destruction process of capitalism vs maintaining inefficient company (ITP recipients went bankrupt) • Strong legal backing to ignore bankruptcies vs political sensitivity /debate on fine levels

  11. Famous last words • Think before you start the process • Questions? • Dirk.Van-Erps@ec.europa.eu • * The views expressed are personal and do not commit the Commission

More Related