PT Jornal Oficial da União Europeia C 37/50

AUXÍLIO ESTATAL — REINO UNIDO

Auxílio estatal SA.15373 (2013/C-18) (ex 2013/NN) — Monitorização do atual regime de auxílio Enterprise Capital Funds (C17/2004)

Convite à apresentação de observações, nos termos do artigo 108.o, n.o 2, do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

(2014/C 37/05)

Por carta de 20.11.2013, publicada a seguir ao presente resumo na língua que faz fé, a Comissão notificou o Reino Unido da decisão de dar início ao procedimento previsto no artigo 108.o, n.o 2, do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia relativamente ao auxílio/à medida acima mencionado/a.

As partes interessadas podem apresentar as suas observações sobre a medida em relação à qual a Comissão deu início ao procedimento no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação do presente resumo e da carta que se lhe segue, enviando-as para o seguinte endereço:

Comissão Europeia Direção-Geral da Concorrência Registo dos Auxílios Estatais 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË Fax: (32-2) 296 1242

Essas observações serão comunicadas ao Reino Unido. Qualquer interessado que apresente observações pode solicitar por escrito o tratamento confidencial da sua identidade, devendo justificar o pedido.

TEXTO DO RESUMO

1. PROCEDIMENTO

O regime (SA. 15373) Enterprise Capital Funds (ECF) foi aprovado pela Comissão em 3 de maio de 2005, nos termos do artigo 87.o, n.o 3, alínea c), do Tratado CE (atualmente artigo 107.o, n.o 3, alínea c), do TFUE) e, em especial, com base nas Orientações relativas ao Capital de Risco de 2001 (1), em vigor nessa altura, após o início de um procedimento formal de investigação [C 17/2004(ex N 566/03)].

Por carta de 18 de outubro de 2006, as autoridades do Reino Unido comprometeram-se a tomar medidas adequadas relativas a todos os regimes vigentes em matéria de capital de risco.

Em 2011, o regime ECF foi selecionado para o exercício de monitorização dos auxílios estatais (SA.15373 (ex 2011/MX)). Verificou-se que o Reino Unido não tinha tomado medidas adequadas para tornar o regime ECF compatível com as Orientações relativas ao Capital de Risco de 2006. Através de um email de 16 de junho de 2013, as autoridades do Reino Unido apresentaram informações sobre a execução do regime vigente, que foi atualizado em 12 de julho de 2013.

2. DESCRIÇÃO DO ATUAL REGIME ECF

Graças à combinação de investimentos públicos e privados, o regime ECF destina-se a melhorar o acesso ao capital de expansão para as PME em todo o Reino Unido. O investimento público foi limitado a duas vezes o capital privado obtido pelo fundo ECF. A distribuição de lucros e perdas entre investidores públicos e privados nos ECF baseou-se na lógica de as perdas serem distribuídas por igual com os investidores privados, ao passo que a distribuição dos lucros não foi pari passu (i.e., os investidores privados receberam a maioria dos lucros acima de uma certa taxa de rendibilidade). Este mecanismo garantia que os ECF tinham objetivos comerciais, mas implicando auxílios estatais.

Os ECF tinham direito a investir em PME elegíveis através de instrumentos de capital próprio e equiparados entre 250 000 libras esterlinas (357 000 euros) e 2 milhões de libras (2,9 milhões de euros). Os investimentos de dívida pura foram explicitamente proibidos ao abrigo do regime. Foram autorizados investimentos complementares desde que o montante total do financiamento de fundos próprios obtido pelas PME junto dos ECF e de outros investidores em fundos próprios não fosse superior a 2 milhões de libras (2,9 milhões de euros). Os investimentos complementares que excedessem este limite foram autorizados, se for caso disso, apenas após ter decorrido um período de pelo menos 6 meses e, para evitar a diluição do capital, sujeitos a um limite máximo de 10 % do capital subscrito de cada ECF. Foram criados 12 fundos ao abrigo do regime ECF, sete dos quais foram criados após 18 de agosto de 2007, i.e., após a data em que as autoridades do Reino Unido deviam ter adotado medidas adequadas, o mais tardar após a entrada em vigor das OCR, em 18 de agosto de 2006. Esses fundos investiram em 94 empresas.

Com base nos elementos de prova fornecidos pelas autoridades do Reino Unido, a Comissão considera que três ECF efetuaram investimentos complementares e anti-diluição em sete empresas. A Comissão considera que o regime permitia que os ECF utilizassem um «mecanismo de preferência» mediante o qual o ECF podia exercer um direito de primeira recusa de adquirir novas ações emitidas por qualquer parte investida na carteira do ECF, a fim de evitar que os investidores privados investissem em tais empresas e, desse modo, diluindo a participação do ECF. Contudo, as autoridades do Reino Unido indicaram que tal mecanismo nunca foi aplicado na prática, tendo-se comprometido a não utilizar esse mecanismo no futuro.

3. AVALIAÇÃO

A avaliação suscitou dúvidas da Comissão no que se refere à conformidade do regime ECF com as atuais OCR, e especialmente no que diz respeito aos seguintes aspetos:

a) Elegibilidade para investimento de várias partes investidas

As OCR (ponto 4.3.2) limitam o investimento de capital de risco em: 1) pequenas empresas até à fase de expansão, ou 2) médias empresas até à fase de arranque, independentemente da localização das partes investidas (i.e., localizadas em áreas assistidas ou não assistidas), ou 3) médias empresas até à fase de expansão, desde que localizadas em áreas assistidas.

A Comissão assinala que seis empresas que procuram obter investimentos parecem ter estado na sua fase de expansão, uma vez que tinham atividades comerciais durante um grande número de anos no momento do primeiro investimento dos ECF. Quatro das seis empresas acima mencionadas eram pequenas empresas no momento do investimento; por conseguinte, os investimentos foram efetuados em conformidade com os limites fixados nas OCR. Contudo, duas empresas, a Reevoo e a Interactive Investors, eram médias empresas (2), no momento do investimento dos ECF, já que excediam o limiar relativo ao número de trabalhadores (4). Além disso, dada a sua localização em Londres, que é uma região não assistida, só podiam ter beneficiado de um investimento até à fase de arranque.

Na presente fase da investigação, a compatibilidade destes dois investimentos com as OCR de 2006 parece duvidosa visto que existem poucas provas de deficiência do mercado. Os terceiros interessados são convidados a apresentar as suas observações sobre os referidos investimentos tardios e sobre a existência de uma deficiência do mercado, como exigido pelas OCR de 2006.

b) Utilização de transações de substituição de capital

Com base nos elementos de prova fornecidos pelas autoridades do Reino Unido, a Comissão entende que o fundo […] (*) investiu numa operação de buy-in management buy-out (BIMBO). A empresa-alvo, a Andante Travels, tinha 28 anos de experiência de vendas no momento do investimento. No momento do investimento, a empresa empregava […] (*) pessoas e tinha um volume de negócios anual de […] (*).

As OCR proíbem aquisições de empresas pelos quadros (buy-out) e transações de capital de substituição. Por conseguinte, a medida em que tal transação teve um impacto na concorrência deve ser testada, permitindo que terceiros possam apresentar observações a esse respeito.

À luz do que precede, a posição preliminar da Comissão é a de que os referidos investimentos efetuados pelos ECF proporcionaram benefícios económicos a várias partes investidas, uma vez que beneficiaram de investimentos/auxílios não conformes com as regras estabelecidas nas OCR de 2006. Na presente fase, a Comissão tem dúvidas de que tais auxílios possam ser considerados compatíveis com o mercado interno.

Em conformidade com o artigo 14.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 659/1999 do Conselho, qualquer auxílio ilegal pode ser objeto de recuperação junto do beneficiário.

TEXTO DA CARTA

«The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the measure referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter "TFEU"). 1. PROCEDURE (1) The Enterprise Capital Funds ("ECFs") scheme (SA.15373) was approved by the Commission on 3 May 2005 under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) and in particular on the basis of the Risk Capital Guidelines of 2001 ("RCGs of 2001") (5), in force at the time, after opening a formal investigation procedure (C 17/2004 (ex N 566/03)). (2) In September 2006, following a meeting with the UK authorities, the services of the Commission informed the UK authorities that the ECFs scheme was not in line with the Risk Capital Guidelines adopted in August 2006 (hereafter "RCGs of 2006") and invited them to take appropriate measures to bring the ECFs scheme in line with them. (3) By letter of 18 October 2006, the UK authorities committed to take appropriate measures concerning all their existing risk capital schemes. (4) In 2011, the ECFs scheme was selected for the State aid monitoring exercise (SA.15373 (ex 2011/MX)). It was found that the UK had failed to take appropriate measures to bring the ECFs scheme in line with the RCGs of 2006. (5) A meeting took place on 21 May 2013 between the Commission services and the UK authorities where the former proposed that the monitoring case and several changes to the scheme, which were subsequently notified on 21 August 2013 (SA.36428) by the UK authorities, be treated separately in two cases but parallel in time. (6) By e-mail of 16 June 2013, the Commission services received information on the implementation of the existing scheme. The information was updated by e-mail of 12 July 2013. (7) Two teleconferences took place on 1 and 2 July 2013 to discuss several elements of the case, and a meeting took place on 6 August 2013 where the UK authorities clarified several aspects of the operations that took place under the existing scheme. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ECFS SCHEME (DECISION OF 2005) (8) Combining public and private investment, the ECFs scheme aimed at improving access to expansion capital for SMEs throughout the UK. Public investment was limited to two times the private capital raised by the fund, i.e. minimum one third of an ECF fund was to be provided by private investors. (9) The distribution of the profits and losses between public and private investors in the ECFs was based on the logic that, on the downside, the losses were distributed on equal terms with the private investors being fully exposed, while on the upside the distribution of the profits was non pari passu, i.e. private investors received most of the profits notably above a certain profitability rate. (6) This mechanism ensured that ECFs were commercially oriented while entailing state aid. (10) According to the rules of the scheme (7), an ECF may invest expansion capital in any company: — that meets the EU definition of an SME; — where the purpose of the relevant investment, or the application of the proceeds of such investment by the relevant company or undertaking, is predominantly related to or for the benefit of the economy of the UK; — whose equity or other securities are not, at the time of investment, listed on a recognised stock exchange (such as the London Stock Exchange) or otherwise quoted on a non-recognised exchange, i.e. AIM, Ofex or any other market on which prices are quoted publicly; — where the trade of such company is a qualifying trade as defined in Paragraph 4, Schedule 28B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, or where the company is undertaking research and development with a view to carrying on a qualifying trade (8). (11) ECF funds invested in eligible SMEs by means of equity and quasi-equity instruments between £250,000 (€357,000) and £2m (€2.9m). Pure debt investments were explicitly forbidden under the scheme (9). (12) Follow-on investments were permitted so long as the total equity funding raised by the SMEs from ECFs and other equity investors was no more than the £2m (€2.9m) limit. (13) Follow-on investments in excess of the above limit, i.e. £2m (€2.9m), were permitted, where necessary, only after a period of at least 6 months and to prevent dilution, subject to an upper limit of 10% of each ECF’s committed capital. (14) From the evidence provided by the UK authorities, the Commission understands that three ECFs, made follow-on anti-dilution investments in 7 companies. The Commission understands that the scheme allowed the ECFs to use a "pre-emption mechanism" whereby the ECFs could exercise a right of first refusal to acquire new shares issued by any investee in the ECF's portfolio, in order to prevent private investors from investing in such companies and thereby dilute the ECF's shareholding. However, the UK authorities have indicated that such a mechanism has never been applied in practice and that they committed not to make use of it in the future. (15) The ECFs scheme was initially approved for a period of 10 years, until 2 May 2015, and was intended to be self-financing over the medium term. For the first year of its operation, the UK allocated €65m to cover the cash-flow cost of the initial public participation. (16) 12 funds were created under the ECFs scheme, out of which 7 were created after 18 August 2007 that is, the date after which the scheme should have been aligned with the RGCs of 2006. The pre-2007 funds invested in 67 companies, while the post 2007 funds invested in 94 companies. Therefore, a total of 161 undertakings have benefited from the scheme. 3. OUTCOME OF THE MONITORING (17) The ECFs scheme was monitored by the Commission services in the light of (1) the Commission's decision of 2005 approving the measure and (2) the RCGs of 2006. (18) The assessment led to the conclusion that the scheme was not in line with the RCGs of 2006 as the UK authorities should have taken appropriate measures within 12 months from their entry into force, i.e. as from 18 August 2007, which they failed to do. The issue of appropriate measures arose with respect to ECFs that received public capital after 18 August 2007i.e. after the date by which the UK authorities should have adopted appropriate measures, at the latest, following the entry into force of the RCGs of 2006 on 18 August 2006. In practice, this meant that only the funds created after the end of the transitional period would need to comply with the RCGs of 2006, whilst the already existing risk capital funds could continue to operate under the rules established by the RSGs of 2001. (19) For the reasons explained in section 4 below, the Commission has doubts with respect to the compliance of the ECFs scheme's implementation with the RCGs of 2006, and particularly with respect to: a) Eligibility for investment of several investees; b) Use of capital replacement operations. 4. ASSESSMENT 4.1. Existence of State aid (20) In the decision of 2005 the Commission concluded that State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU is present at the level of the investors and at the level of the beneficiary SMEs. Therefore, through the implementation of the ECF scheme, the companies that are the object of the current monitoring case have received State aid in the sense of the above mentioned article. The UK authorities do not contest this conclusion. 4.2. Eligibility for investment of several investees (21) Since the creation of the scheme, the ECFs invested in 161 companies, of which 94 were investments made after 18 August 2007. Out of the 94 companies, 40 companies had not had sales at the time of the first investment. Of the remaining 54 companies, 6 appear to have been in their expansion stage since, at the moment of ECF's first investment, they had had commercial activities for a significant number of years. (22) The RCGs of 2006 (Point 4.3.2) limit the investment of risk capital to: (1) small enterprises up to the expansion stage and irrespective of their location, i.e. located in assisted or non-assisted areas (2) medium-size enterprises up to the start-up stage, irrespective of their location, and (3) medium-sized enterprises up to the expansion stage located in assisted areas. (23) The Commission notes that four out of the six above mentioned companies fulfil the definition of small enterprises at the moment of the investment. Therefore, although they seem to have been companies in their expansion stage, given their size, the investments were made in accordance with the limits set out in the RCGs of 2006. (24) The two other companies, Interactive Investors and Reevoo (10) exceeded, at the moment of the first investment, the threshold for a small enterprise (12). Therefore, at the moment of the investment, the two companies qualified as medium enterprises. Moreover, given their location in London, which is a non-assisted area, they could have received investment only up to the start-up phase (13). (25) Consequently, the Commission expresses doubts with respect to the compatibility of the aid for the investments into the two companies as they qualified as medium size enterprises, were in their expansion stage and were located in non-assisted areas. (26) The Commission may declare compatible measures providing finance for medium-sized enterprises in their expansion stage located in non-assisted areas, subject to a detailed assessment (balancing) of the individual case under Chapter 5 of the RCGs of 2006, including any evidence of market failure. At this stage of the investigation, the compatibility of the aid for these two investments with the RCGs of 2006 seems doubtful as there is limited evidence with respect to the market failure they faced. Third parties are invited to submit comments notably on the existence of a market failure with respect to such late-stage development companies as well as any other information relevant for making an in-depth assessment of the aid measure at issue under Section 5 of the RCG 2006. 4.3. Use of a capital replacement transaction (27) Based on the evidence provided by the UK authorities, the Commission understands that the fund […] invested in one buy-in management buy-out (14) (BIMBO). The target company, Andante Travels, had 28 years of commercial activities at the moment of the investment. At the moment of the investment, the company employed […] persons and had an annual turnover of […]. (28) Under the RCGs of 2006 the venture capital and risk capital measures refer to new/fresh capital being provided to the investees. Since they have limited impact on the cash/balance sheet of an investee, capital replacement operations are not foreseen as compatible measures under the Guidelines. Hence, in its practice the Commission considers them as not covered by the Guidelines (15), irrespective of the location of the investee, i.e. assisted or not-assisted area. In order to further assess the conditions in which the operation took place and to test its impact on competition, the Commission has decided to open the formal investigation procedure with respect to the above BIMBO operation and invites third parties to present comments on it. 5. CONCLUSION (29) Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission considers that the ECFs may have granted aid outside of the scope of the approved scheme without prior notification. Therefore it has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to funding decisions by the ECFs as to the following elements: a) Eligibility for investment into Reevoo and Interactive Investor; b) Use of one capital replacement transaction, namely the above BIMBO that benefited Andante Travels. (30) The Commission requires the United Kingdom and all interested parties, within one month from the receipt of this letter, to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessing the compatibility of the above-mentioned measures with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.. (31) The Commission wishes to remind the authorities of the United Kingdom that Article 108(3) TFEU has suspensory effect, and would draw their attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient. (32) The Commission informs the authorities of the United Kingdom that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.»

(1) JO C 235 de 21.8.2001, p. 3.

(2) No momento do primeiro investimento ECF, a Reevoo tinha nove anos de atividade comercial; empregava […] () pessoas e tinha um volume de negócios anual de […] (*), ao passo que a Interactive Investors tinha 11 anos de atividade comercial; empregava […] (*) pessoas e tinha um volume de negócios anual de […] (*).

(3) Abrangido pelo dever de sigilo profissional.

(4) 2003/361/CE - Jornal Oficial da União Europeia L 124/39 Nos termos do artigo 2.o do anexo da Recomendação da Comissão de 6 de maio de 2003, relativa à definição de micro, pequenas e médias empresas, uma empresa é definida como média se empregar entre 50 e 250 pessoas e se tiver um volume de negócios anual não superior a 50 milhões de euros e/ou um balanço total anual não superior a 43 milhões de euros. Além disso, uma empresa é definida como pequena se empregar menos de 50 pessoas e tiver um volume de negócios anual e/ou um balanço total anual não superior a 10 milhões de euros.

(5) OJ C 235, 21.8.2001, p. 3.

(6) The government receives a prioritised return equivalent to the interest charged on the balance of outstanding loans to the fund (at the time 4.3%). Once the government has received its prioritised return, outstanding loans may then be repaid to the government and the private investors under the terms specified in the ECFs' partnership agreement. All further distributions to investors are to be divided between the government and all other private investors in a fixed profit-sharing ratio.

(7) Enterprise Capital Fund – Guidance for applicants http://www.capitalforenterprise.gov.uk/files/Guidance%20for%20Prospective%20ECF%20Managers%20-%20V2.pdf

(8) A trade will not qualify if one or more excluded activities together make up a 'substantial part' of that trade. The main excluded activities are: (1) dealing in land, financial instruments, or in goods other than in the course of an ordinary trade of retail or wholesale distribution; (2) financial activities, property development, or providing legal or accountancy services; (3) leasing (including letting assets on hire, except in the case of certain ship-chartering activities); (4) receiving royalties or licence fees, except where these arise from an intangible asset such as a patent or know-how, most or all of which has been created by the company (or one of its subsidiaries); (5) farming, market gardening, or forestry; (6) operating or managing hotels, guest houses, hostels, or nursing or residential care homes; and (7) providing services to another company in certain circumstances where the other company's trade consists to a substantial extent in excluded activities. Source: Enterprise Capital Funds – Guidance for applicants

(9) ECF's Partnership agreement, Point 3.6: "[ECF] may not acquire Investments in a Portfolio Company… (d) in loan finance or debt instruments with no associated equity securities."

(10) At the moment of the first investment Reevoo had 9 years of commercial activity; it employed […] () persons and had an annual turnover of […]. Interactive Investors had 11 years of commercial activity; it employed […] persons and had an annual turnover of […];Source: UK authorities

(11) Covered by the obligation of professional secrecy;

(12) See Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124 of 20.5.2003, p. 36), Annex I, Article 2(2) (50 employees).

(13) The Commission also notes that Reevoo had been backed by well-known venture capital firms, i.e. […] and […] (Source: UK authorities) which puts in question whether the company faced any market failure.

(14) Management buy-out is a form of replacement capital through which one or more managers of a company take control of the company's capital by acquiring the majority of shares from the actual owner(s). When the buyer is an outsider of the company who will become manager once the operation is completed, the transaction is called management buy-in. A BIMBO occurs when existing management, along with outside managers, decide to buyout a company. Buy-in management buyout (BIMBO) is a form of a buyout that incorporates characteristics of both a management buy-out and a management buy-in.

(15) See, e.g., Case SA.36489 (2013/N), recital (41)