natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This loan was released in two tranches, EUR 20 million in September 2009 and EUR 55 million in December 2009.
Družba Duferco Belgium je obdržala jeklarske dejavnosti, nova hčerinska družba DLP pa je prevzela dejavnosti diverzifikacije: Duferco Wallonie.
The rate applicable to the loan was set at the 12-month Euribor rate (1,302 %) plus 75 basis points, i.e. 2,052 % when the agreement was concluded.
Na podlagi teh reorganizacij je organigram skupine naslednji:
According to the information presented by Belgium on 4 June 2013, the rate actually adopted was 1,99 % when the two tranches of the loan were released.
Diagram št. 2
The capital was repayable […].
Družbe, udeležene v ukrepu št. 6
The interest was […].
POVZETEK POMISLEKOV, IZRAŽENIH V SKLEPU O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
Furthermore, according to Article 5 of the loan agreement, […].
OBSTOJ POMOČI
On 29 June 2011, the parties agreed that given the negative situation of the steel sector worldwide and the change in control of SIF, SIF had to repay the loan early in three payments spread out over 2011, 2012 and 2013.
UKREP ŠT. 1
In its response to the opening decision, Belgium informed the Commission that SIF's claim to FSIH had been repaid in full.
Svoje pomisleke je utemeljila z različnimi argumenti.
MEASURE 6: EUR 100 MILLION INCREASE IN CAPITAL OF DLP
Prvič, prodajna cena v eurih je bila leta 2006 enaka nakupni ceni leta 2003, kar kaže na skromno donosnost v obdobju posedovanja.
In summer 2011, FSIH injected a total of EUR 100 million into DLP, the investment vehicle under Luxembourg law created to house the parallel investments of FSIH and Duferco in Belgium.
Komisija se je temu čudila glede na pozitivne rezultate, ki jih je družba Duferco US zabeležila med letoma 2003 in 2006, in posledično povečanje njenega lastniškega kapitala.
This investment was made in two stages.
V zvezi s tem se ni strinjala z mnenjem Belgije, da bi morala biti donosnost udeležbe ocenjena v ameriških dolarjih (funkcijska valuta družbe Duferco US) in ne v eurih (funkcijska valuta holdinga FSIH).
First, on 29 June 2011, FSIH granted a convertible loan of EUR 30 million to DLP at a 12-month Euribor rate plus 200 basis points (2,137 % + 2 % = 4,137 %).
Dalje, Komisija se je čudila, da pred določitvijo izvršilne cene opcije ni bila izvedena ocena vrednosti.
This loan was concluded for 10 years.
Komisija se je spraševala tudi o nagibih za dezinvestiranje holdinga FSIH, zlasti o njegovem pogledu na spremembo gospodarskih razmer v prihodnjih letih.
The loan did not come with any guarantee given that the aim of the parties was to convert it into capital.
V zvezi s tem je dvomila, da bi zasebni vlagatelj privolil v tako dolgo trajanje opcije (skoraj deset let), tudi če bi zatrjeval, da pričakuje skorajšnjo vrnitev konjunkture.
The conversion of the loan into capital took place on 23 September 2011.
Poleg tega je ugotovila, da se je s sporazumoma iz let 2005 in 2006, sklenjenima s skupino Duferco oziroma […], zmanjšala izpostavljenost družbe Duferco US nihanjem na trgu, s čimer se je povečala njena privlačnost.
On 7 July 2011, through its subsidiary DII, Duferco took part in a capital increase of EUR 101 million in DLP, for 50,26 % of the share capital of DLP.
Nazadnje, Komisija se je čudila, da je bila nakupna opcija dodeljena brezplačno, čeprav je imela določeno ekonomsko vrednost za skupino Duferco, ki bi jo lahko uveljavila, kot bi se ji zdelo najprimerneje.
On 14 July 2011, FSIH granted EUR 70 million to DLP through a capital increase.
UKREP ŠT. 2
After its investment, FSIH held 49,74 % of the share capital of DLP.
Komisija je dvomila, da so bili pogoji, pod katerimi se je holding FSIH umaknil iz družbe DPH, v skladu z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The EUR 201 million capital increase (EUR 100 million injected by FSIH and EUR 101 million injected by Duferco) was subscribed with the aim of:
Poleg tega, da se Komisija ni strinjala z uporabo ameriškega dolarja za oceno donosnosti naložbe v družbo DPH, je predvsem dvomila o utemeljenosti metode za določitev prodajne cene.
purchasing the shares of DLLPL and the shares of another Belgian subsidiary of Duferco, Duferco Trebos, for EUR [80-100] million and EUR [5-15] million respectively.
Natančneje, čudila jo je razlika med ceno, ki sta jo uporabili stranki, in neodvisno oceno, ki jo je družba Ernst & Young izvedla leta 2006.
These transactions reflect the will of Duferco and FSIH, already described under Measure 3, to combine all the Walloon assets of Duferco in DLP following the end of the partnership between Duferco and NLMK;
Belgija je v fazi predhodne preiskave to razliko namreč utemeljila z upoštevanjem petih odbitkov.
purchasing the stock of Duferco La Louvière Sales [11] for EUR [50-70] million;
Komisija se ni strinjala, da je do teh odbitkov dejansko prišlo v pogajanjih med [družbo, ki je takrat nadzorovala družbo DPH] in holdingom FSIH, in se je poleg tega formalnega pomisleka spraševala tudi o njihovi ekonomski upravičenosti.
investing EUR [30-40] million in DLLPL, which became Duferco Belgium, to produce a new continuous casting line.
Nazadnje, Komisija se je spraševala o nagibih za dezinvestiranje holdinga FSIH.
In December 2012, the decision was made to split the steel activities (which were mostly inactive) and non-steel activities of Duferco in the Walloon Region again.
Skratka, Komisije je menila, da holding FSIH nikakor ni ravnal kot zasebni vlagatelj, temveč si je zgolj želel povrniti svoj začetni vložek v višini 80 milijonov EUR, povečan samo za dividendo v višini 4 milijonov EUR, ki mu je bila dolgovana za leto 2005, vendar mu še ni bila izplačana.
Duferco Belgium kept the steel activities, while the diversification activities were taken by a new DLP subsidiary, Duferco Wallonie.
UKREP ŠT. 3
Following this restructuring, the organisation chart of the company was as follows:
Komisija je dvomila, da so bili pogoji, pod katerimi je holding FSIH vložil v družbo DSIH, v skladu z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Graph 2
Komisija je v odgovor na trditev Belgije glede enakovrednosti transakcije opozorila, da je bila družba DSIH ob naložbi že pod nadzorom skupine Duferco in da so bila tudi sredstva, vložena v to novo hčerinsko družbo, že v lasti skupine Duferco (v 50-odstotni lasti prek holdinga SIF).
Companies involved in Measure 6
V takih okoliščinah je nova tveganja prevzel samo novi (javni) delničar, zato transakcije ni mogoče opredeliti za enakovredno.
SUMMARY OF DOUBTS RAISED IN THE OPENING DECISION
Kar zadeva vrednotenje družbe Duferco Diversification in njenih hčerinskih družb:
EXISTENCE OF AID
se je Komisija čudila, da bi kdo želel postaviti ceno […] milijonov EUR za projekt v tako začetni fazi, kot je bil projekt […];
MEASURE 1
je Komisija izrazila pomisleke glede ocene vrednosti projekta Marcinelle ob upoštevanju predpostavk, na katerih je temeljil.
The Commission points out that its doubts did not concern the conditions under which FSIH had acquired its stake in Duferco US.
Nazadnje, Komisija se je spraševala o posledicah, ki jih je za holding FSIH imela prodaja družbe Duferco Diversification družbi DLP leta 2011, saj je bila družba DLP v samo 49,7-odstotni lasti holdinga FSIH, medtem ko je ta imel v lasti vse delnice družbe DSIH razen ene.
On the other hand, the Commission doubted whether the conditions under which FSIH had allowed its stake in Duferco US to be terminated were in line with the market economy investor principle.
UKREPA ŠT. 4 IN 5
It put forward several arguments in support of its concerns.
Komisija je imela pomisleke glede trditve Belgije, da obrestna mera, ki se je uporabila za obe posojili, ni vsebovala nobenega elementa pomoči, saj je bila veliko višja od povprečne spremenljive obrestne mere, ki so jo banke uporabile za [družbo, ki je bila takrat na čelu skupine Duferco] in za holding SIF, tj. 1,31 % oziroma 1,92 %.
First, the sale price in euros was the same in 2006 as the acquisition price in 2003, which suggests mediocre profitability over the holding period.
V zvezi s posojilom, odobrenim [družbi, ki je bila takrat na čelu skupine Duferco], glede na informacije, ki jih je takrat poslala Belgija, ni bilo mogoče najti zasebnih posojil s podobnimi značilnostmi.
The Commission was surprised by this, given the positive results obtained by Duferco US between 2003 and 2006, and the consequent increase in its own funds.
V zvezi s posojilom, odobrenim holdingu SIF, je Komisija dvomila, da je mogoče temu podjetju pripisati bonitetno oceno AAA, zato se je čudila, da to posojilo ni bilo zavarovano.
In this respect, the Commission challenged Belgium's opinion that the return on the stake should be evaluated in US dollars (the functional currency of Duferco US) and not in euros (the functional currency of FSIH).
Posledično Komisija ni mogla dokončno izključiti možnosti, da sta posojili, dodeljeni [družbi, ki je bila takrat na čelu skupine Duferco] in holdingu SIF, vsebovali elemente državne pomoči.
Second, the Commission was surprised that no valuation had been made before the option exercise price was set.
UKREP ŠT. 6
The Commission also questioned the motives behind FSIH's withdrawal, particularly its perception of an economic downturn for the coming years.
Komisija je izrazila dvome glede skladnosti povečanja kapitala družbe DLP za 100 milijonov EUR z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
In this respect, the Commission doubted that a private investor would have agreed to such a long option (almost 10 years), even though they claimed to anticipate an imminent economic downturn.
Komisija je opozorila, da naložbe ni mogoče a priori šteti za enakovredno, saj je za skupino Duferco pomenila naložbo v družbo, ki je že bila v lasti te skupine.
It also noted that the agreements of 2005 and 2006, concluded with Duferco and […] respectively, reduced the exposure of Duferco US to market fluctuations and therefore helped make it more attractive.
V teh okoliščinah javni delničar in zasebni delničar nista prevzela enakih tveganj, saj zadnjega ni mogoče šteti za neodvisnega glede na zadevno naložbo.
Finally, the Commission was surprised that the purchase option had been granted at no cost when it had a certain economic value for the Duferco Group, which could exercise it to suit its interests.
Kar zadeva ceno sredstev, ki naj bi se prenesla na družbo DLP, je Komisija dvomila zlasti o metodi, ki se je uporabila za oceno vrednosti družb DLLPL in Duferco Trebos ter zalog, odkupljenih od družbe Duferco La Louvière Sales.
MEASURE 2
ZDRUŽLJIVOST
The Commission doubted that the conditions under which FSIH had ended its stake in DPH were in line with the market economy investor principle.
Komisija je poudarila, da za obravnavane ukrepe očitno ni mogoče uporabiti nobenega njenega okvirnega besedila ali smernic o merilih združljivosti na področju državne pomoči.
Aside from the Commission's challenging the use of the US dollar to estimate the profitability of the investment in DPH, its main concerns related to the validity of the method for setting the sale price.
Zlasti v zvezi z možnostjo regionalne pomoči so upoštevna besedila določala, da taka pomoč v jeklarstvu ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
It was particularly surprised by the difference between the price adopted by the parties and the independent evaluation carried out by Ernst & Young in 2006.
PRIPOMBE BELGIJE
During the preliminary investigation phase, Belgium had justified this difference by taking into account five haircuts.
V zvezi z načelom zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu Belgija meni, da glede na posebne okoliščine prodaje delnic družbe Duferco US ni mogoče ugotoviti, da ta posel ni bi sklenjen po tržni ceni.
The Commission questioned whether these haircuts had actually featured in the negotiation between [the company that controlled DPH at the time] and FSIH and, beyond this formal challenge, had reservations about their economic validity.
Prvič, Belgija navaja, da je funkcijska valuta družbe Duferco US s sedežem v Združenih državah v skladu z mednarodnim računovodskim standardom IAS 21.9 ameriški dolar.
Finally, the Commission had concerns about the motives behind FSIH's withdrawal.
Zato meni, da je treba naložbo holdinga FSIH in izračun njegove donosnosti analizirati v ameriških dolarjih in ne s pretvorbo v eure.
In conclusion, the Commission put forward the idea that, far from acting as a private investor, FSIH had merely sought to recover its initial stake of EUR 80 million, increased only by a dividend of EUR 4 million due for 2005 but which had not yet been distributed.
Dodaja, da je holding FSIH prevzel tveganje, da se ne zavaruje pred tveganji deviznega tečaja, ker je bilo glede na vrsto transakcije in zlasti zaradi negotovosti glede datuma izstopa iz naložbe zelo težko pridobiti kritje.
MEASURE 3
Belgija tako potrjuje, da je bila donosnost naložbe na podlagi zneskov v ameriških dolarjih 6,81 % na leto.
The Commission doubted whether the conditions under which FSIH had invested in DSIH were in line with the market economy investor principle.
Dalje, Belgija se ne strinja, da bi bilo treba pri oceni vrednosti družbe Duferco US upoštevati vrednost lastniškega kapitala.
In response to Belgium's claim concerning the pari passu nature of the operation, the Commission noted that, at the time of investment, DSIH was already under the control of Duferco and that the assets brought to this new subsidiary were also already held by Duferco (at 50 %, through SIF).
Trdi, da se, prvič, s povečanjem lastniškega kapitala – če je prav razumela vpliv na knjigovodsko vrednost družbe – ne poveča nujno njena tržna vrednost.
Under these conditions, only the new (public) shareholder took on new risks and the operation could not be considered pari passu.
Drugič, poudarja velika nihanja dobička družbe v letih, ki jih je obravnavala Komisija.
Concerning the valuation of Duferco Diversification and its subsidiaries:
V zvezi s tem Belgija nasprotuje trditvi Komisije, da sta družbi Duferco US in Farrell v obdobju 2003–2006 „na splošno poslovali z dobičkom“.
the Commission was sceptical that one would want to put a price of EUR […] million on a project at such an early stage as the […] project,
Belgija trdi, da bi bilo treba namesto ocene na podlagi lastniškega kapitala uporabiti metodologijo ocene vrednosti na podlagi večkratnika dobička pred obrestmi, davki in amortizacijo.
the Commission expressed doubts as to the valuation of the Marcinelle project, given the underlying assumptions on which it was based.
Ne strinja se z vrednostjo na podlagi večkratnika, ki ga je Komisija uporabila na podlagi neodvisne podatkovne zbirke S&P Capital IQ.
Lastly, the Commission had reservations about the consequences for FSIH of the resale of Duferco Diversification to DLP in 2011, given that FSIH held only 49,7 % of DLP, but held all the shares minus one share in DSIH.
Trdi, da je povprečni večkratnik podjetij, podobnih družbi Duferco US, (med […] in […]) nižji od tistega, ki ga je uporabila Komisija ([…]).
MEASURES 4 AND 5
Iz tega izhaja nižja ocena vrednosti 49,9-deleža družbe Duferco US.
The Commission had reservations about Belgium's claim that the rate adopted for the two loans did not contain any element of aid since it was much higher than the average variable interest rate applied by banks to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and the SIF group, i.e. 1,31 % and 1,92 % respectively.
Prodajna cena, za katero sta se dogovorili stranki ([…] milijonov USD), je po mnenju Belgije precej višja od ocenjene vrednosti prodanega deleža ([…] milijonov USD, če se uporabi večkratnik […], in […] milijonov USD, če je večkratnik […]).
With regard to the loan to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time], it was not possible to find private loans with similar characteristics using the information Belgium submitted at the time.
Poudarja, da je na koncu dogovorjena prodajna cena ([…] milijonov USD) bistveno višja od teh ocenjenih vrednosti.
With regard to the loan to SIF, the Commission doubted that the company could be treated as AAA-rated, and it was surprised at the lack of collateral for this loan.
Nazadnje, Belgija navaja različne razloge v zvezi z dezinvestiranjem holdinga FSIH: (i) sklenitev pogodbe o dobavi plošč z […], na podlagi katere so se poslovni rezultati sicer ustalili, vendar bi lahko omejila potencialni dobiček družbe Duferco US; (ii) pogajanja o prodaji 50-odstotnega deleža holdinga SIF skupini NLMK, s katerimi se je predvidela vključitev družbe Duferco US v okvir partnerstva z rusko skupino; (iii) domnevni občutek holdinga FSIH o skorajšnji vrnitvi konjunkture v jeklarstvo; (iv) obstoj velikih likvidnih sredstev v skupini Duferco, kar naj bi ustvarilo priložnost za to, da holding FSIH proda svoje deleže v družbi Duferco US.
Consequently, the Commission was not in a position to definitively rule out the possibility that the loans granted to [the parent company of the Duferco Group at the time] and SIF had included elements of State aid.
Kar zadeva ceno in iztek nakupne opcije, Belgija trdi, da je bila cena opcije vključena v dogovorjeno izvršilno ceno in da je bilo skoraj desetletno trajanje upravičeno zaradi negotovosti glede datuma izvedbe predvidene transakcije med skupinama Duferco in NLMK.
MEASURE 6
Belgija v odgovor na prvi pomislek Komisije poudarja, da je treba naložbo v družbo DPH oceniti v ameriških dolarjih in ne v eurih, saj je ameriški dolar funkcijska valuta družbe DPH.
The Commission expressed doubts about the whether the EUR 100 million capital increase in DLP complied with the market economy investor principle.
Z uporabo ameriškega dolarja kot referenčne valute bi bilo mogoče dobiti 8,81-odstotno letno donosnost udeležbe v družbi DPH.
The Commission noted that the investment could not be regarded a priori as pari passu since it was made for Duferco in a company already held by the group.
Kar zadeva preostale pomisleke Komisije, Belgija utemeljuje razliko med prodajno ceno in razponom iz poročila Ernst & Young iz leta 2006 z upoštevanjem petih odbitkov.
Under these conditions, the public and private shareholders did not bear the same risks, because the latter could not be deemed independent in relation to the investment in question.
ODBITEK ŠT. 1 – OCENA VREDNOSTI ODDELKA TRADING DRUŽBE DPH
Concerning the price of the assets to be acquired by DLP, the Commission had particular concerns about the method used to value DLLPL, Duferco Trebos and the stock acquired from Duferco La Louvière Sales.
DPH je matična družba dveh večjih oddelkov: oddelka Trading (trgovina) in oddelka Industry (proizvodnja).
COMPATIBILITY
Družba DPH je 29. septembra 2003, torej nekaj mesecev po vstopu holdinga FSIH v njen lastniški kapital, prodala 50-odstotni delež svojega oddelka Trading (Duferco International Trading Holding – […]) družbi […].
The Commission noted that no framework or guidelines from the Commission concerning the compatibility criteria relating to State aid seemed to apply to the measures under investigation.
Ta prodaja je bila izvedena na podlagi knjigovodske vrednosti oddelka Trading, tako da je bila prodajna cena izračunana ob upoštevanju polovice lastniškega kapitala družbe Duferco International Trading Holding, tj. 40,83 milijona USD ali 36,01 milijona EUR glede na povprečni letni devizni tečaj USD-EUR leta 2003.
In terms of the possibility of regional aid in particular, the relevant legislation provided that such aid in the steel sector was not compatible with the internal market.
Po navedbah Belgije je to tržna cena.
COMMENTS BY BELGIUM
Torej jo je bilo treba upoštevati pri oceni celotne skupine približno tri leta pozneje.
Belgium notes first that the functional currency of Duferco US, an undertaking established in the United States, is the US dollar pursuant to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 21.9.
Nasprotno pa Belgija ne nasprotuje temu, da oddelek Industry ostane ocenjen po tako imenovani metodi razmerja „price/earnings“.
Consequently, it believes that FSIH's investment and the calculation of its return should be analysed in US dollars and not in euros after conversion.
Pri oceni vrednosti oddelka Trading po njegovi knjigovodski vrednosti se je uporabil odbitek med 20 in 31 milijoni USD od ocene iz poročila Ernst & Young iz leta 2006.
It adds that FSIH took the risk of not hedging against exchange-rate fluctuations because cover was very difficult to obtain, given the nature of the operation and particularly because of the uncertainty surrounding the date of exit from the investment.
Nazadnje, Belgija poudarja, da tudi če bi želeli uporabiti metodo razmerja „price/earnings“ za celotno skupino, razmerje, uporabljeno v poročilu Ernst & Young iz leta 2006, ne bi upoštevalo profila tveganja družbe DPH.
Belgium confirms that the return on the investment, based on amounts in US dollars, was 6,81 % per year.
Izbira take metode namreč ne pomeni, da oddelkov Trading in Industry ni treba oceniti ločeno, saj bi bilo treba za vsakega od njiju uporabiti drugo razmerje.
Belgium then disputes that the value of own funds should be taken into account in the valuation of Duferco US.
V poročilu Ernst & Young iz leta 2006 naj bi se za celotno skupino (vključno z oddelkom Trading) napačno uporabilo razmerje, dobljeno na podlagi primerljivih podjetij, ki so dejavna samo v industriji.
It argues, first, that although an increase in own funds naturally has an impact on the book value of a company, this does not necessarily lead to an increase in its market value.
Vendar je trgovina po mnenju Belgije bolj tvegana dejavnost kot proizvodnja.
Second, it highlights how very volatile the company's profits were over the years under investigation by the Commission.
Zato bi bilo treba za to vrsto dejavnosti uporabiti nižje razmerje „price/earnings“, da bi se upoštevala manjša želja vlagateljev po tem profilu tveganja (Belgija je v podkrepitev te ugotovitve predložila podatke iz zbirke S&P Capital IQ).
In this regard, Belgium disagrees with the Commission's claim that the 2003-2006 period had been ‘on the whole a profitable period’ for Duferco US and Farrell.
Ker v poročilu Ernst & Young iz leta 2006 to ni bilo storjeno, je bila družba DPH precenjena.
Belgium maintains that it is better to use a valuation based on a multiple of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) rather than on own funds.
ODBITEK ŠT. 2 – CIKLIČNOST TRGA JEKLA
It disagrees with the multiple the Commission used on the basis of the independent S&P Capital IQ database.
Belgija trdi, da obdobje, ki se je v poročilu Ernst & Young uporabilo za oceno dobička in razmerja „price/earnings“, ki naj bi se uporabila pri ocenjevanju vrednosti družbe Duferco US, ne odraža ustrezno cikličnosti jeklarskega sektorja.
It argues that the average multiple of companies similar to Duferco US (between […] and […]) is below that of the Commission ([…]).
Ker to obdobje zajema samo štiri leta v obdobju 2003–2006, naj bi namreč vključevalo tri dobra leta (2004, 2005 in 2006) in samo eno slabo leto (2003).
Consequently, the valuation of Duferco US is reduced by 49,9 %.
Stranki naj bi torej v svojo analizo dodali leti 2001 in 2002 ter za vsako leto opredelili drugačne ponderje, kot so določeni v poročilu Ernst & Young.
According to Belgium, the sale price agreed by the parties (USD […] million) would be significantly higher than the valuation of the stake sold (USD […] million if the adopted multiple were […] and USD […] million if the multiple were […]).
Na podlagi vrednosti in ponderjev, ki sta jih upoštevali stranki, ocenjena vrednost družbe DPH znaša […] milijonov USD (v primerjavi z […] milijoni USD v referenčnem primeru iz poročila Ernst & Young).
To refine its valuation process, Belgium then refers to the influence of the supply contracts concluded by Farrell, Duferco and […] in September 2005 and January 2006.
Ta precejšnja razlika med ocenjeno vrednostjo, ki bi ji bilo treba prišteti še učinek drugih odbitkov in prilagoditev, naj bi dokazovala, da je bila družba DPH v poročilu Ernst & Young iz leta 2006 precenjena.
It argues that the stabilisation of Farrell's EBITDA resulting from these contracts, leading to a reduced risk/return on investment profile, supported a sale price for FSIH's stake in Duferco US of between USD […] million and USD […] million.
ODBITEK ŠT. 3 – NELIKVIDNOST DELEŽEV