The General Court has dismissed appeals by Total, Elf Aquitaine and Arkema France against the Commission decision in the bleaching chemicals cartel decision. On 14 July 2011, the GC held that the Commission had correctly attributed liability for the infringement by Arkema to its parent companies, Total and Elf Aquitaine, who held substantially all of the share capital in Arkema France at that time. Under competition law, conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company where that subsidiary does not decide independently its own conduct on the market. Where a parent company owns all of the share capital in a subsidiary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company exercises a decisive influence over it. Under these circumstances, the Commission may impose a fine without having to establish the personal involvement of the parent company in the infringement. The fact that a subsidiary acts independently in specific aspects of its marketing policy does not establish its autonomy, and that while an overlap in managers of the parent and subsidiary may show decisive influence, its absence is not a sufficient indication of independence. The GC held that the parent companies failed to rebut the presumption of decisive influence.