natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the bidders were allegedly provided with decisive information on the key financial figures of NBG in the data room only in German only one working day before the expiry of the deadline for the submission of the final offer or even on that day.
Kolmandal kaebajal oli rahaliste vahendite tõendi esitamiseks aega kümme kuud (8. aprillist 2013, mil oli [kolmanda pakkuja] ja võõrandajate vaheline esmakontakt, kuni 17. veebruarini 2014) ja hoolsuskohustuse auditi esitamiseks peaaegu neli kuud (23. oktoobrist 2013 kuni 17. veebruarini 2014).
In particular, material information such as the audited annual accounts of NBG as at 31 December 2012 was allegedly only provided on the evening of the last working day before the date set for the submission of the final offer.
Pankrotihaldurid tegid seega nõuetes mööndusi, tuginedes komisjoni otsuste tegemise praktikale [127].
The sellers discriminated the other bidders by allegedly granting Capricorn preferential access to major third party suppliers.
Läbirääkimisi uue lepingu sõlmimise üle õlletarnijaga ja ürituse „Rock am Ring” korraldajaga ei pidanud Capricorn, vaid NBG, kes esitas ka asjaomased dokumendid andmeruumis.
In particular, complainant 3 claims that there must have been negotiations between Capricorn, the sellers as well as the brewery Bitburger already weeks before the winning bidder was announced on 11 March 2014 [122].
Kolmanda kaebaja nimetatud väidetav seos Capricorniga puudub.
The notarisation of the asset purchase agreement between the sellers and Capricorn must have taken place before 11 March 2014.
Võõrandajad ei kehtestanud pakkumismenetluses lõpliku pakkumuse väljavalimiseks keskkonnaalaseid kriteeriume.
The award of the contract was already communicated to Capricorn before a decision by the committee of creditors was made, and a press release by Capricorn dates from 9 March 2014 and was thus made 2 days before the decision of the committee of creditors on 11 March 2014.
Ainsad pakkumismenetluse kriteeriumid lõpliku pakkumuse väljavalimiseks olid:
Without informing the other bidders the sellers deviated from the process letter of 17 October 2013 by waiving the requirement to provide a financing guarantee for the entire purchase price to the sole benefit of Capricorn [123].
Kolmanda kaebaja pakkumust ei olnud võimalik valida tehingu toimumise kindluse puudumise tõttu, sest ta ei esitanud koos kinnitava pakkumusega rahastamiskinnitust.
The sellers violated the conditions of the process letter by not providing individual bidders with an agreed and internally approved mark-up of the asset purchase agreement prior to the submission date of the final offer thus rendering the finalisation of the financing significantly more difficult.
Peale selle püüdsid pankrotihaldurid hinnata kolmanda kaebaja võimalusi rahastamist siiski tagada tema ärimudeli selliste näitajate põhjal, mis võiksid toetada tehingu toimumist.
The sellers based the award of the assets also on environmental criteria and assumed — without further liaising with complainant 3 — that the company would not be able to meet such criteria, although no explicit environmental conditions were introduced by the sellers [124].
Kolmanda kaebaja ärimudeli aluseks olid […] ja […].
Finally, complainant 3 claims that the sales contract is invalid due to the violation of the standstill obligation of Article 108(3) TFEU.
Kontseptsiooni kooskõla Nürburgringi mürasaastenõuetega ei olnud valikukriteerium.
Complainant 3 further claims that, subsequently to the above, the financing conditions for the acquisition of the Nürburgring assets were changed to the benefit of Capricorn and in clear deviation from the rules set by the sellers and the process letter given to the bidders, which may constitute further aid to the benefit of Capricorn.
Pankrotihaldurite ja Saksamaa esitatud juurdehindlusega lepingute asjaomaste punktide kohaselt oli võõrandajatel ja/või ostjal õigus lepingust taganeda, kui komisjon ei ole esitanud positiivset otsust 15. juuliks 2014 (14. jaanuari 2014. aasta lepingu projekti järgi) või 31. detsembriks 2014 (14. veebruari 2014. aasta juurdehindlusega lepingu projekti järgi).
Pursuant to the insolvency administrators, complainant 3 had not submitted any binding financing commitment for EUR 30 million neither along with its confirmatory bid of 17 February 2014 (that referred to a binding financing commitment of […] in the amount of EUR 30 million) nor along with the complaint, and the complainant 3's claim that the evidence of financing could be submitted at a later stage was even not demonstrated by non-binding statements of third parties.
Pankrotihaldurite arvates ei kujuta asjaolu, et kumbki kvalifitseeritud pakkumuse esitanud pakkujatest ei täitnud täielikult rahaliste vahendite tagamise nõuet (ostuhinna tasumise garantii esitamine või ostuhinna maksmine usalduskontole) ja et võõrandajad seepärast sellest nõudest faktiliselt loobusid ega teatanud sellest kolmandale kaebajale, endast tõendit menetluse läbipaistvuse puudumise kohta.
In contrast to the confirmatory offers of Capricorn and [Bidder 2], the confirmatory offer of complainant 3 did not meet the financing requirements set in the process letter of 17 October 2013.
Kolmandat kaebajat see ei puudutanud, sest ta ei esitanud kinnitava pakkumusega tõendit rahaliste vahendite olemasolu kohta.
On 11 March 2014, the sellers had therefore no ground to award the contract to complainant 3.
Kõigi pakkujate teavitamine väidetavast loobumisest ei oleks pakkumismenetlust mõjutanud.
For the sellers, the risk that waiting for complainant 3's evidence of financing may lead to the reduction of the bidders to one or zero was not acceptable, since:
Peale selle ei andnud loobumine alust jätta kolmandal kaebajal rahastamiskinnitus esitamata ning see on kooskõlas hüpoteetilise erasektori võõrandaja tegutsemisviisiga.
[Bidder 2] consortium insisted on the implementation of the transfer of ownership as of 3 April 2014;
Pankrotihaldurid märgivad, et pankrotihaldurite ja võlausaldajate komisjoni võetud meetmed ei ole riigiga seostatavad ning puuduvad ka Capricorni soodustavad tegurid, sest võõrandajad rakendasid valiku tegemisel turumajanduslikult tegutseva ettevõtja põhimõtet.
and (b) there was lack of progress in the substantiation of complainant 3's offer, despite the fact that the latter had handed in its expression of interest on 17 May 2013 and its indicative offer already on 30 September 2013, therefore the likelihood of closing the transaction with complainant 3 was reduced.
Seoses väitega, et Capricorni pakkumus ei hõlmanud täielikku rahastamist, sest ta ei maksnud ostusumma teist osamakset ja talle anti Nürburgringi varade ostmise rahastamistingimuste muutmise kaudu tõenäoliselt täiendavat abi, esitab Saksamaa järgmised seisukohad:
The alleged financing commitment of Jupiter Financial Group dated 26 March 2014 was not submitted to the sellers, while a later non-signed letter of investment bank and advisory firm […], dated 31 March 2014, is conditional on the satisfactory conclusion of the due diligence.
Capricorn ei saanud selle kaudu eelist, sest teist osamakset refinantseeriti intressimäära tõstmisega 8 %ni ja esemelise tagatisega (vt joonealune märkus 72);
The development fund for the municipalities surrounding Nürburgring, in the amount of EUR 200 million, was to no benefit of the sellers.
teise osamakse refinantseerimine ei hõlmanud riigiabi, sest refinantseerimisotsus ei ole riigiga seostatav, vaid selle tegid pankrotihaldurid iseseisvalt, ilma liidumaad kaasamata;
According to the insolvency administrators, the bidders were informed that the selection of the successful tenderer maybe carried out shortly after the deadline for the submission of offers on 17 February 2014.
eeskirju, mille võõrandajad kindlaks määrasid ja mis esitati pakkujatele protsessiga seotud kirjas, ei rikutud, sest võõrandajad ei kehtestanud pakkumismenetluses konkreetseid nõudeid ostusumma osamaksete kohta ja seega ei oleks pakkumuste hindamist mõjutanud ka mõne pakkuja võimalik soov asendada sularahatagatised ostuhinna tagamiseks mõne muu väärtusliku tagatisega.
The information provided by the sellers could not give an expectation that the process would be extended.
Pankrotihaldurite arvates tuleks kaebus alusetuna tagasi lükata.
The press release quoted by complainant 3 states that the insolvent administrators intend to conclude the contract in the first quarter of 2014.
Kolmanda kaebaja esitatud põhjendamatud väited rahastamise kohta ei ole kooskõlas kaalutletud turuosalise ega pankrotihalduri tegutsemisega.
The insolvency administrator states that it is not true that he had publically stated that it is aimed to take a decision at the end of March, that Capricorn was informed already before the meeting of the creditors' committee about the award of the contract and that a press release was published by Capricorn on 9 March 2014.
MEYRICK COXI (NELJANDA KAEBAJA) KAEBUS
The insolvency administrators state that the transaction structure (sale of individual assets, asset clusters or all assets, without transfer of shares or liabilities) had not changed during the bidding process.
Neljas kaebaja leiab, et Capricorni pakkumust ei tunnistatud edukaks pakkumuseks mitte seetõttu, et see oli majanduslikult kõige soodsam, vaid kuna tegemist on Saksa äriühinguga ja võõrandajad ei soovinud varasid müüa finantsvaldusettevõtja juhitud konsortsiumile.
The term ‘clean balance sheet’ stands for nothing else than the exclusion of the transfer of liabilities with the sale.
Ta lisab, et Capricorn esitas mitme kriteeriumi järgi madalama hinnaga pakkumuse kui [teine pakkuja].
The fact that the sellers are owner companies and that the operation business is carried out by NBG, was communicated to all interested parties already in the teaser that was sent to complainant 3 on 17 May 2013.
Neljas kaebaja rõhutab järgmist:
According to the insolvency administrators, if complainant 3 became aware of the activity of NBG indeed only during the due diligence, as alleged, it can be concluded that complainant 3 dealt unsatisfactorily with the extensive information put at the disposal before the submission of indicative offers.
Capricorni pakkumuse rahastamine on vähem kindel kui [teisel pakkujal] [128];
At no moment in time, the sellers had required that the buyer takes over the contracts of NBG.
[teise pakkuja] pakkumuses on ette nähtud suuremad ettemaksed [129];
A take-over of the lease contract between the sellers and NBG by the buyer was not considered by the insolvency administrators, because of the special situation of NBG in view of the transfer of assets sought from the outset.
tehingu toimumise risk on Capricorni puhul suurem kui [teise pakkuja] pakkumuse valimise korral [130];
The insolvency administrators claim that complainant 3 had realised very late that in case of a take-over of the assets as of 1 January 2014, it would have a predominantly ‘empty’ Nürburgring, and the new contracts with customers and sponsors would lead to (increased) revenues only in the 2015 season due to the planning time of (racing) events.
[teisel pakkujal] on rohkem kogemusi ja suurem võimekus [131];
Moreover, the sellers had repetitively stressed that the bidders could define the subject of the purchase.
tõenäosus 25 miljoni lisaeuro investeerimiseks Nürburgringi on [teise pakkuja] puhul suurem kui Capricorni puhul;
As regards the claims for damages of third parties, the sellers informed complainant 3 that it would be hardly possible for it to conclude new contracts with the customers of NBG under terms for the customer worse than the running contract, insofar as the issue of a compensation of damages for the non-fulfilment of the contracts with NBG is not clarified.
pakkujaid koheldi pakkumismenetluse raames erinevalt, kusjuures Capricorni koheldi paremini [132].
It was necessary to address the risk that the buyer and the contractual partners conclude a new contract that leads to a situation where the contractual partner pays a high consideration, asks for a compensation of the difference with the old amount of consideration and pays in the later years, for which there was no contract with NBG, a substantial lower consideration.
Neljas kaebaja väidab, et Capricorn ei maksnud ostuhinna teist osamakset, mille maksetähtpäev oli juuli lõpus, ja et makse hilinemise trahvina määratud 25 miljoni euro ja 8 % suuruse intressimäära sissenõudmisest loobuti, millega anti Capricornile taas riigiabi.
The requirement of the sellers for such exclusion is not unusual for asset deals that lead to business close-down and allows to guarantee the best sale in the interest of the creditors.
See tekitab küsimusi ka teabe suhtes, mille KPMG ja pankrotihaldurid edastasid menetluse raames võlausaldajate komisjonile, ja tõestab, et Capricorni rahalise olukorra kohta ei esitatud korrektseid andmeid.
Pursuant to the insolvency administrators, the deadline for the submission of the confirmatory offers was extended by letter of 17 December 2013 because also other bidders had not yet submitted a satisfactory offer.
Neljas kaebaja on seisukohal, et […] ja Capricorni vahelist rahastamiskokkulepet ei sõlmitud, vaid allkirjastati ainult tingimused, mistõttu ei saanud Capricorn võlausaldajate koosoleku ajal rahastamiskokkulepet esitada.
It was repetitively made clear to the bidders that NBG took over the operative business only after the 2012 season, that it had therefore to fulfil largely the contracts of NAG and that a reliable accounting for the operational business did thus not (yet) exist.
Viimaks järeldab neljas kaebaja, et tema esitatud teabe põhjal anti Capricornile Nürburgringi varade võõrandamisel selge eelis, et see eelis tulenes otsusest, mis ei ole kooskõlas viisiga, kuidas turumajanduslikest põhimõtetest lähtuv võõrandaja tegutseks ja pakkumisi hindamiskriteeriumide alusel hindaks, et niisugune võõrandaja ei oleks teinud järeldust, et Capricorni pakkumus on kokkuvõttes majanduslikult soodsam kui [teise pakkuja] pakkumus, ja et korraldada tuleks uus menetlus, mille raames kohaldatakse sidusaid kriteeriume, mis aitavad tagada avatud, õiglase ja tingimusteta pakkumismenetluse, kehtestatakse selge ajakava, mida ka järgitakse, ega avaldata võlausaldajatele pakkujate andmeid.
According to the insolvency administrators, it is up to the potential buyers to take account of the related risks.
Pankrotihaldurid selgitavad, et neljandat kaebajat kui [teise pakkuja] liiget mõjutatakse ainult kaudselt.
The insolvency administrators indicate that on 6 March 2014, complainant 3 submitted a mark-up to the asset sale agreement to its confirmatory offer.
Nad teevad ettepaneku kaebus tagasi lükata, sest pakkumismenetlus oli avatud, läbipaistev ja tingimusteta ning varad müüdi pakkujale, kelle pakkumus oli kogu vara eest võimalikult suure müügitulu saamise seisukohast parim.
The draft asset purchase agreement negotiated on 13 February was from the sellers;
Pankrotihaldurid ei nõustu väitega, nagu oleks võlausaldajate komisjon nõustunud võõrandamisega Capricornile vaid seetõttu, et tegemist oli Saksa äriühinguga, mitte finantsvaldusettevõtja juhitud konsortsiumiga.
it was therefore clear that the next draft would be produced by complainant 3.
Pankrotihaldurite andmete kohaselt on Capricorni pakkumusest saadav müügitulu palju suurem kui [teise pakkuja] puhul; tehingu toimumise kindluse seisukohast ei ole kahe pakkumuse vahel otsustavat erinevust, mis õigustaks lepingu sõlmimist märgatavalt madalama hinnaga pakkumuse teinud pakkujaga (mõlema pakkumuse korral oli tehingu toimumise kindlus rahuldav, ehkki mitte parim võimalik).
According to the insolvency administrators, all the bidders that qualified to the respective phase of the selection process had the same documents at their disposal in the data room.
Seevastu Capricorni osanik Robertino Wild esitas ulatuslikud garantiid ja Capricorni laenud olid tagatud […] tavapärase ettevõttevälise rahastamise kinnitusega.
The documents identified in the complaint were not available to the sellers and particularly to other bidders earlier, all tenderers had the same chance to view the documents in the data room, and other tenderers concluded the due diligence with the same documents.
Pankrotihaldurid kontrollisid seda kinnitust ja teavitasid võlausaldajate komisjoni selle tulemustest, mille kohaselt ei sisaldanud rahastamiskinnitus tavatuid reservatsioone ega tingimusi.
All the bidders were informed early enough that the accounting of the companies had deficiencies.
Nii [14–17] miljoni euro suurune omaosalus kui ka laenud suuruses [41–49] miljonit eurot on tagatud [22–27] miljoni euro suuruse leppetrahviga, mida ostja peab maksma, kui võõrandaja peab tasumata maksete tõttu lepingust taganema.
Almost all documents of the sellers and NBG were put in German in the data room, and the sellers were not obliged to provide all documents in English.
Ka leppetrahvi suhtes on esitatud tagatised.
In addition, the insolvency administrators bring forward that the deadline for the submission of offers and evidence of financing was satisfactory.
Võlausaldajate komisjon tegutses pankrotihaldurite hinnangu kohaselt.
Complainant 3 had 10 months (8 April 2013, as the date of the first contact between [Bidder 3] and the sellers, until 17 February 2014) for the submission of evidence of financing and almost four months (23 October 2013 until 17 February 2014) for the due diligence.
Ettemaksete kohta märgivad pankrotihaldurid, et [teise pakkuja] pakkumusel oli nii eeliseid (31. märtsiks 2014 makse suuruses [30–33] miljonit eurot [teise pakkuja] valimise korral ja [4,6–5,1] miljoni euro suurune makse Capricorni valimise korral) kui ka puudusi:
The negotiations for the new contract on the supply of beer and with ‘Rock am Ring’ were not negotiated by Capricorn but by NBG, and the corresponding documents were put in the data room.
Tabel 10
There is no link to Capricorn claimed by complainant 3.
Capricorni ja [teise pakkuja] pakkumuste võrdlus
The sellers had not introduced any environmental criteria in the tender process for selecting the final offer.
Capricorni pakkumus
The only criteria of the tender process for selecting the final offer were:
[Teise pakkuja] pakkumus
the maximisation of the total proceeds for all of the assets;
Summa miljonites eurodes
and (b) the expected transaction security.
Ostuhinna 1. osamakse 31.3.2014
At the same time, the sellers carried out discussions with [Bidder 2] and the final stage of the purchase agreement's negotiation with [Bidder 2] and Capricorn, in view of [Bidder 2]'s offer of EUR [32-39] million (see Table 10 below) and the negotiation between Capricorn and […] resulting in the latter bank's financial commitment dated 10 March 2014.
[7,1–7,6]
Therefore, based on the absence of proof of financing with the confirmatory offer of complainant 3, there was a high risk of non-conclusion of the contract with complainant 3.
Ostuhinna 2. osamakse 31.7.2014
Furthermore, the insolvency administrators tried to estimate the chances of complainant 3 to secure the financing by assessing further indicators of complainant 3's business model that could speak for the implementation of the transaction.
Ostuhinna 2. osamakse 31.3.2014
The business model of complainant 3 was based on […] and on the.
[22–27]
[…].
Ostuhinna 3. osamakse 20.12.2014
As the noise requirements valid for Nürburgring do not allow for […] and a […] does not exist, the implementation of the concept in a short term could not be expected.
Ostuhinna 3. osamakse 2016. aastal
The concept of complainant 3 was therefore evaluated as an indicator for a substantial risk in view of the conclusion of the contract or at least for a substantial time and negotiation requirements.
[2,3–2,6]
The compliance of the concept with the noise requirements at Nürburgring was not an award criterion.
NBG sularahavoog 2014. aastal [133]
With regards to complainant 3's claim that Capricorn's offer was not unconditional, since it was subject to a non-contestable decision by the Commission making clear that there is no extension of the recovery order, the insolvency administrators and Germany argue that complainant 3 had conditions in its mark-up contract with a similar effect.
2015. aasta tulemustel põhinev makse 2016. aastal [133]
According to the provisions included in the relevant parts of those mark-up contracts, as submitted by the insolvency administrators and Germany, the purchaser and/or the seller had the right to withdraw from the contract if no positive decision of the Commission had been issued by 15 July 2014 (as stipulated in draft contract of 14 January 2014) or 31 December 2014 (as stipulated in draft mark-up contract of 14 February 2014).
Ostuhinna 4. osamakse tehingu lõppemisel
According to the insolvency administrators, the fact that none of the two bidders that submitted a qualified confirmatory offer met fully the requirement of a secured financing (guarantee regarding the price amount or payment of that amount to an escrow account), and that the sellers had therefore allegedly waived that requirement de facto, without having informed complainant 3, is no proof of an non-transparent process.
[41–49]
Complainant 3 was not affected because it did not submit any confirmatory offer with proof of financing.
2016. aasta tulemustel põhinev makse 2017. aastal [133]
Informing all bidders about the alleged waiver would not influence the tender process.
Ülejäänud ostuhind
Moreover, the waiver is not a causal for the non-submission of financing confirmations by complainant 3, and it corresponds to the behaviour of a hypothetical private seller.
[10,5–11,5]
The insolvency administrators argue that the measures taken by the insolvency administrators or the committee of creditors are not imputable to the State, and that no advantage to Capricorn is evident as the sellers implemented the selection process according to the standard of an operator acting on market conditions.
2017. aasta tulemustel põhinev makse 2018. aastal [133]
Finally, as regards the claim that Capricorn did not provide a fully financed offer because it failed to pay the second instalment of the purchase price, and that there may be further aid to Capricorn because, subsequently to the above, the financing conditions for the acquisition of the Nürburgring assets were changed to the benefit of Capricorn, the German authorities argue:
Kogu ostuhind
there was no benefit for Capricorn, since the second instalment was rescheduled with interest of 8 % and pledges (see footnote 72);
[47–52]
there is no State aid involved in the second payment's rescheduling since the decision for the latter is not imputable to the State, because the second payment's rescheduling was decided solely by the insolvency administrator, without the involvement of the Land;
Töötajaskonna vähendamine/ümberkorraldamine
and (c) there was no deviation from the rules set by the sellers and the process letter given to the bidders, because in the bidding procedure the sellers made no fixed requirements to the bidders regarding purchase price instalments before closing, therefore also a possible request of a bidder to replace cash collaterals by other valuable collaterals to secure the purchase price would have had no impact on the evaluation of the bids.
Lindneri lepingute lõpetamine
According to the insolvency administrators, the complaint should be refused as unjustified.
NBG negatiivne sularahavoog 2014. aasta esimeses kvartalis
The unsubstantiated hints of complainant 3 regarding financing are not compatible with the behaviour of a prudent market player or insolvency administrator.
Lõppmakse
COMPLAINT FROM MR MEYRICK COX (COMPLAINANT 4)
Majandustulemus
Complainant 4 claims that Capricorn was awarded the contract not for the most economically advantageous offer, but because it is a German undertaking and the sellers did not want to sell to a private equity led consortium.
[70–77]
It further alleges that the offer from Capricorn was lower than the offer from [Bidder 2] across multiple criteria.
[41–45]
Specifically, complainant 4 claims that:
[Teise pakkuja] ja tema liikmete head tulemused ning nende suurem kogemus ühinemise ja omandamise valdkonnas ei õigusta märgatavalt väiksema ostuhinnaga pakkumuse edukaks tunnistamist.