The CFI confirmed that Clearstream had abused its dominant position in the supply of clearing and settlement services in respect of German securities. Clearing is the process by which contractual obligations of the buyer and the seller of securities are established. Settlement is the transfer of securities from the seller to the buyer and of funds from the buyer to the seller. In 2004, the EC found that Clearstream had abused its dominant position in the clearing and settlement of German securities by refusing to supply certain services to its major rival Euroclear. The EC also found that Clearstream had charged discriminatory prices to Euroclear. Clearstream appealed the EC ’s decision but the CFI rejected this appeal. The CFI confirmed that Clearstream had a de facto monopoly in the clearance and settlement of German securities and that Clearstream had engaged in abusive practices aimed at harming Euroclear
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
CFI dismisses Clearstream’s appeal
- Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP
- Bernard A. Nigro Jr, Peter Guryan, Richard C. Park, Ianis Girgenson and Dr. Tobias Caspary
- European Union, Germany
- November 13 2009
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to...
"Lexology is one of the few newsfeeds that I do actually look over as and when it comes in - the information is current; has good descriptive headings so I can see quickly what the articles relate to and is not too long."
Senior Legal Counsel, Bankwest Business
Bank of Western Australia Ltd