Why Gazprom’s $7.6 Billion Polish Fine Is Just the Start, , on October 9, 2020 at 9:36 am

Financial News
By
On October 9, 2020
In Financial News
Tags:

(Bloomberg) — Poland’s antitrust watchdog slapped a $7.6 billion fine on Gazprom PJSC over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, opening a new front in the bitter political battle over the natural gas project. Wednesday’s surprise move raises a whole set of legal questions about the plan, which is teetering on the brink.What was the fine for?The antitrust authority said Gazprom and its partners, which were ordered to pay about $61.3 million, failed to get its approval for a joint venture to finance the pipeline. Completing the project makes European gas customers more dependent on a single supplier, Gazprom, and may increase gas prices for Polish customers, the authority said. It also ordered the companies to terminate their financing agreements for the pipeline.What happens next?The Polish authority gave Gazprom and its partners 30 days days to “restore” competition or appeal the decision. While Gazprom owns the Baltic Sea pipeline project, half of its 9.5 billion-euro ($11.2 billion) cost is being financed by Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Germany’s Uniper SE, Wintershall AG and Austria’s OMV AG.Gazprom already said it will appeal and any ruling will most likely take at least five years, based on the current length of antitrust cases. Courts could decide to fast-track the procedure, if lawyers manage to convince them of the urgency of the case.The dispute could move from the local tribunal in charge of competition matters all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it could get stuck for at least three years. A 2006 decision by the competition watchdog on an interchange-fee cartel is still being processed by Polish courts.When will Gazprom have to pay up?The fine will only have to be paid once the court of appeals issues a binding verdict. If Gazprom doesn’t pay, judges could order the seizure of assets. European Union rules theoretically allow Polish authorities eventually to seek help from antitrust agencies elsewhere in Europe to help extract fines on their behalf.Is there a risk of political interference?Maybe. A series of controversial judicial reforms in Poland since 2015 has led to increased political influence over courts, putting the nation on the collision path with the European Commission and triggering a series of lawsuits at the EU’s courts that could threaten the nation’s access to the bloc’s funds. Some European courts have refused to hand suspects to Poland under European arrest warrant procedures amid concerns that their trial would not be fair.While a given court and its rulings may not be politicized, the problem of the Polish judiciary has become systemic and politicians have excessive influence over courts, says the association of Polish judges Iustitia. This, in turn, strips them of confidence in the impartiality and independence of their rulings.Does the fine and appeal put Nord Stream 2 on hold?No. The Polish decision can’t block the entire pipeline project and its effects might remain purely of a financial nature for Gazprom, but it creates a further hurdle. According to analysts, Poland has no jurisdiction to halt the construction of the gas pipeline, which is almost complete, because the gas link doesn’t cross the nation’s territorial waters or its exclusive economic zone.How unusual is the penalty?Very. The Polish fine far-exceeds EU monopoly-abuse penalties for big tech firms like Google and is well above the fines that the EU or other national authorities have handed down for breaches of merger rules. The EU’s antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager pointedly told reporters this week that none of her fines since 2014 have hit the maximum level of 10% of a company’s yearly revenue. Altice NV was fined 124.5 million euros two years ago for moving forward on a takeover before it got EU permission.Could it all end up in the EU courts?Chances are slim. Poland’s antitrust office became involved in this case after Gazprom and its partners asked it and other EU regulators to approve the creation of Nord Stream 2. After Poland questioned the joint venture in 2016, the companies revoked the request and proceeded to get loan financing. The Polish regulator continued investigating, saying the move was an attempt to circumvent competition law. Because the decision is based on national law and issued solely by the Polish watchdog, without the involvement of the European Commission, the local courts will have the final say in the case.A direct challenge against Poland’s decision at the EU’s courts in Luxembourg won’t be possible for the same reasons. But, since Poland is an EU member and is supposed to apply antitrust rules in line with the bloc’s laws, there is a slight possibility that a question about the scope of EU law comes up in the course of the Polish appeals.If a Polish court decided it was unable to give an answer, it could refer a number of questions to the EU Court of Justice. Such questions would not go into the substance of the dispute and would be focused only on questions of law. The wrangling would also delay any final decision by another two years or so.(Updates with process for collecting fine and chart in third question.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Why Gazprom’s $7.6 Billion Polish Fine Is Just the Start(Bloomberg) — Poland’s antitrust watchdog slapped a $7.6 billion fine on Gazprom PJSC over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, opening a new front in the bitter political battle over the natural gas project. Wednesday’s surprise move raises a whole set of legal questions about the plan, which is teetering on the brink.What was the fine for?The antitrust authority said Gazprom and its partners, which were ordered to pay about $61.3 million, failed to get its approval for a joint venture to finance the pipeline. Completing the project makes European gas customers more dependent on a single supplier, Gazprom, and may increase gas prices for Polish customers, the authority said. It also ordered the companies to terminate their financing agreements for the pipeline.What happens next?The Polish authority gave Gazprom and its partners 30 days days to “restore” competition or appeal the decision. While Gazprom owns the Baltic Sea pipeline project, half of its 9.5 billion-euro ($11.2 billion) cost is being financed by Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Germany’s Uniper SE, Wintershall AG and Austria’s OMV AG.Gazprom already said it will appeal and any ruling will most likely take at least five years, based on the current length of antitrust cases. Courts could decide to fast-track the procedure, if lawyers manage to convince them of the urgency of the case.The dispute could move from the local tribunal in charge of competition matters all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it could get stuck for at least three years. A 2006 decision by the competition watchdog on an interchange-fee cartel is still being processed by Polish courts.When will Gazprom have to pay up?The fine will only have to be paid once the court of appeals issues a binding verdict. If Gazprom doesn’t pay, judges could order the seizure of assets. European Union rules theoretically allow Polish authorities eventually to seek help from antitrust agencies elsewhere in Europe to help extract fines on their behalf.Is there a risk of political interference?Maybe. A series of controversial judicial reforms in Poland since 2015 has led to increased political influence over courts, putting the nation on the collision path with the European Commission and triggering a series of lawsuits at the EU’s courts that could threaten the nation’s access to the bloc’s funds. Some European courts have refused to hand suspects to Poland under European arrest warrant procedures amid concerns that their trial would not be fair.While a given court and its rulings may not be politicized, the problem of the Polish judiciary has become systemic and politicians have excessive influence over courts, says the association of Polish judges Iustitia. This, in turn, strips them of confidence in the impartiality and independence of their rulings.Does the fine and appeal put Nord Stream 2 on hold?No. The Polish decision can’t block the entire pipeline project and its effects might remain purely of a financial nature for Gazprom, but it creates a further hurdle. According to analysts, Poland has no jurisdiction to halt the construction of the gas pipeline, which is almost complete, because the gas link doesn’t cross the nation’s territorial waters or its exclusive economic zone.How unusual is the penalty?Very. The Polish fine far-exceeds EU monopoly-abuse penalties for big tech firms like Google and is well above the fines that the EU or other national authorities have handed down for breaches of merger rules. The EU’s antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager pointedly told reporters this week that none of her fines since 2014 have hit the maximum level of 10% of a company’s yearly revenue. Altice NV was fined 124.5 million euros two years ago for moving forward on a takeover before it got EU permission.Could it all end up in the EU courts?Chances are slim. Poland’s antitrust office became involved in this case after Gazprom and its partners asked it and other EU regulators to approve the creation of Nord Stream 2. After Poland questioned the joint venture in 2016, the companies revoked the request and proceeded to get loan financing. The Polish regulator continued investigating, saying the move was an attempt to circumvent competition law. Because the decision is based on national law and issued solely by the Polish watchdog, without the involvement of the European Commission, the local courts will have the final say in the case.A direct challenge against Poland’s decision at the EU’s courts in Luxembourg won’t be possible for the same reasons. But, since Poland is an EU member and is supposed to apply antitrust rules in line with the bloc’s laws, there is a slight possibility that a question about the scope of EU law comes up in the course of the Polish appeals.If a Polish court decided it was unable to give an answer, it could refer a number of questions to the EU Court of Justice. Such questions would not go into the substance of the dispute and would be focused only on questions of law. The wrangling would also delay any final decision by another two years or so.(Updates with process for collecting fine and chart in third question.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

168 Robinson Road,
Capital Tower, Singapore 068912
+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

5th Floor, No. 1-8, Section 5, Zhongxiao East Road, Taipei

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Australia

44 Martin Place, Sydney 2000 Australia
+02 8319 3232

Indonesia

Millennium Centennial Center, 38th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 25
Jakarta 12920, Indonesia

Market Coverage