130 348
2014 Annual Report
Prysmian Group
130
EXPLANATORY NOTES
A.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Prysmian S.p.A. (“the Company”) is a company incorporated
and domiciled in Italy and organised under the laws of the
Republic of Italy.
The Company has its registered office in Viale Sarca, 222 -
Milan (Italy).
Prysmian S.p.A. has been listed on the Italian Stock Exchange
since 3 May 2007 and has been included since September
2007 in the FTSE MIB index, comprising the top 40 Italian
companies by capitalisation and stock liquidity.
The Company and its subsidiaries (together “the Group” or
“Prysmian Group”) produce, distribute and sell cables and
systems and related accessories for the energy and telecom-
munications industries worldwide.
Consolidated Financial Report |
EXPLANATORY NOTES
A.1 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN 2014
Antitrust investigation
On 2 April 2014, the European Commission concluded the
investigations started in January 2009 by adopting a decision
under which it found that, between 18 February 1999 and 28
January 2009, the world’s largest cable producers, including
Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l., adopted anti-competitive
practices in the European market for high voltage submarine
and underground power cables.
The European Commission held Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l.
jointly liable with Pirelli & C. S.p.A. for the alleged infringe-
ment in the period from 18 February 1999 to 28 July 2005,
sentencing them to pay a fine of Euro 67.3 million, and it held
Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. jointly liable with Prysmian
S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for the alleged
infringement in the period from 29 July 2005 to 28 January
2009, sentencing them to pay a fine of Euro 37.3 million.
Prysmian has appealed against this decision to the General
Court of the European Union and has submitted an applica-
tion to intervene in the appeals respectively lodged by Pirelli
& C. S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. against the
same decision. Both Pirelli & C. S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. have in turn submitted applications to intervene in
the appeal brought by Prysmian against the European Com-
mission’s decision. Prysmian has not incurred any financial
outlay as a result of this decision having elected, pending
the outcome of the appeals, to provide bank guarantees as
security against payment of 50% of the fine imposed by the
European Commission (amounting to approximately Euro 52
million) for the alleged infringement in both periods. As far as
Prysmian is aware, Pirelli & C. S.p.A. has provided or is none-
theless preparing to provide the European Commission with a
bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the fine imposed for
the alleged infringement in the period 18 February 1999 - 28
July 2005. Pirelli & C. S.p.A. has also filed a civil action against
Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. in which it demands to be held
harmless for all claims made by the European Commission in
implementation of its decision and for any expenses related
to such implementation. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. filed its
reply in February 2015, requesting that the claims brought by
Pirelli & C. S.p.A. be rejected in full and that it should be Pirelli
& C. S.p.A. which holds harmless Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi
S.r.l., with reference to the alleged infringement in the period
18 February 1999 - 28 July 2005, for all claims made by the
European Commission in implementation of its decision and
for any expenses related to such implementation. Following
a detailed and careful analysis of the European Commission’s
ruling, and nonetheless considering this has been appealed
and so could be submitted to second-instance judgement,
as well as the fact that the investigations initiated by the
Canadian Antitrust Authority have ended without any
sanctions for Prysmian, it has been decided to release part of
the existing provision.
It also reported that the investigations initiated by the
Canadian Antitrust Authority have ended without any
sanctions for Prysmian.
Prysmian has also learned from several sources, including
in the public domain, that some British operators have filed
actions in the High Court in London against certain cable
manufacturers, including the Prysmian Group, to obtain
compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of