Business Breakdown: Parent Company Liability and Partner Dependency
The Paris Court of Appeal ruled on the responsibility of the parent company of the author for a sudden termination of the commercial relations established in the event of interference by the latter in the management of his daughter and the criteria to be taken into account in the event of economic dependence of the partner.
The Court of Appeal of Paris ruled on the responsibility of the parent company of the author for a sudden termination of the commercial relations established in the event of interference by the latter in the management of his daughter and the criteria to be taken into account in the event of economic dependence of the partner.
This dispute between the companies Vente-privée.com (parent company), Vente-privée logistics (daughter company 100% owned), and Logi-Presse (coming under the rights of Stocklog) (business partner) concerned the termination of the commercial relationship maintained between the latter two concerning logistics services, including the storage of pallets for Vente-privée.com.
In this case, this relationship was initiated by a 2016 contract concluded with the company Vente-privée.com (parent) and then continued without a written contract with the company Vente-privé logistics (daughter) from 2018 onwards on the occasion of the transfer of logistics operations from the parent company to its subsidiary. The relationship ended in 2020 with 4 ½ months written notice.
At first instance, the Commercial Court of Paris ordered Vente-privée.com and Vente-privée logistique to pay compensation to Stocklog for sudden termination of the commercial relationship, considering that an 8-month notice would have been necessary given the economic dependence of the partner.
Vente-privée.com and Vente-privé logistique therefore appealed against:
- the admissibility of the action against Vente-privée.com (mother),
- the existence of an established business relationship, and
- the brutal nature of the breach.
On the first point, the vente-privé companies tried to defend themselves by invoking the legal autonomy of both mother and daughter entities. However, the Court considered that this autonomy was not sufficient to exclude the liability of the parent company in view of the evidence produced demonstrating its interference in the logistics management of its subsidiary.
On this point, consistent case law holds that a parent company cannot, in this sole capacity, be designated co-responsible for the sudden termination of an established commercial relationship notified by its subsidiary to its partner (Cass. com., 20 May 2014, No. 12-36.705; Cass. com., 7 May 2019, No.17-27.229).
However, in this case, concrete evidence of interactions and communications between the parent company and the subsidiary’s partner demonstrated a direct involvement of Vente-privée.com in logistics management, despite the formal transfer of activities to its subsidiary.
An email dated 31 December 2018, sent by a logistics operations manager of Vente-privée.com (mother) was particularly decisive in that it contained detailed instructions on invoicing and logistics procedures, and was interpreted by the Court as proof of the interference of Vente-privée.com (mother) in logistics management, despite the official transfer of these activities to its subsidiary in 2018.
According to the Court “evidence of interference in the logistics services, if not the management itself, of the company Vente-privé.com in the definition of the contractual framework of business relations with its subsidiary for logistics services with the company Stocklog”.
On the other points, the Paris Court of Appeal recognized the existence of a commercial relationship established over four years, but reversed the judgment on the brutal nature of the termination, finding that the four and a half months’ notice was sufficient, rejecting the argument relating to Stocklog’s situation of economic dependence.
To demonstrate such a situation, Stocklog had nevertheless (i) presented figures showing that the turnover achieved with Vente-privé represented an increasing share of its total turnover, reaching 76.47% in 2018 and (ii) reported significant investments, such as the subscription of commercial leases to meet Vente-privé’s storage requests, and the hiring of temporary staff.
However, the Court held that economic dependency could not be deducted solely from the share of turnover or investments made. She pointed out that Stocklog had not provided sufficient evidence regarding the efforts made to secure new contracts during the notice period, nor demonstrated the specific barriers faced in the market warranting longer notice. This judgment here seems to oppose the traditional position of the Court of Cassation to assess the situation of the victim on the date of notification of the termination without taking into consideration the subsequent circumstances, and in particular his research or retraining efforts during the notice period (see not. Cass.com, October 4, 2016, No.15-14.025). It is therefore not certain that this judgment will survive a possible appeal in cassation.
This position should perhaps be seen as the wish of the Paris Court of Appeal to strengthen the obligation to provide diversification efforts incumbent on a company in a situation of economic dependence and to reserve the granting of longer notice only to situations of dependence presenting real specific difficulties after the termination. In the
absence of the Stocklog company to provide such evidence, the sale-private companies were ultimately not ordered jointly and severally to compensate the damage suffered by the Stocklog company due to the termination of the commercial relationship deemed regular. (Montpellier Court of Appeal, April 30, 2024, No.22/03998)
(Court of Appeal, Paris, Pole 5, Chamber 11, 18 October 2024 – No. 22/13114)
Discover our related services and tools
Distribution networks, Competition
Restrictive competition practices
The penalty incurred for a restrictive practice can be up to 5 million euros or 5% of your CAHT France.
GOUACHE Avocats ensures the validity of your purchase and distribution agreements with regard to the law of restrictive practices. Contact us to have your supplier and distributor agreements audited.
Are you subject to a control by the DGCCRF, a subpoena based on the criminalization of a restrictive practice of competition?
GOUACHE Avocats assists you in the context of these controls or litigation (subject to a significant imbalance, obtaining an advantage without compensation, sudden termination of established commercial relations, prohibition of off-grid resale, imposed prices, etc.).
The penalty incurred for a restrictive practice can be up to 5 million euros or 5% of your CAHT France.
GOUACHE Avocats ensures the validity of your purchase and distribution agreements with regard to the law of restrictive practices. Contact us to have your supplier and distributor agreements audited.
Are you subject to a control by the DGCCRF, a subpoena based on the criminalization of a restrictive practice of competition?
GOUACHE Avocats assists you in the context of these controls or litigation (subject to a significant imbalance, obtaining an advantage without compensation, sudden termination of established commercial relations, prohibition of off-grid resale, imposed prices, etc.).
And resources on the same topic: "Restrictive competition practices"
Réseaux de distribution, Concurrence
The Court of Cassation specifies the criteria for denigration constituting an abuse of a dominant position
In the Lucentis/Avastin case, the Commercial Chamber has just delivered an interesting judgment that redefines the contours of the denigration constituting an abuse of a dominant position.
Réseaux de distribution, Concurrence
Termination of commercial relationship: clarifications on the rules of notice
The Court of Cassation clarifies the criteria for assessing notice in the event of termination of a commercial relationship, stressing the importance of the duration of the relationship and economic dependence. An essential analysis for companies concerned with securing their contractual practices.
Réseaux de distribution, Concurrence
Anti-Competitive Practices and Jurisdiction
The Paris Court of Appeal has sole jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to restrictive competition practices and anti-competitive practices.
Réseaux de distribution, Concurrence
Restrictive competition practices and international public policy
Does the law of restrictive practices belong to international public policy or not?
