On 17 May 2011, the General Court (GC) rejected appeals by Elf Aquitaine (Elf) and Arkema France (Arkema) against the quantum of fines imposed by the European Commission for their participation in the sodium chlorate cartel. One of the claims concerned the vexed question of parent company liability for a subsidiary’s breach. The GC reiterated the established principle that there is rebuttable presumption that a wholly-owned subsidiary does not freely determine its own conduct. In this instance Elf held 97 per cent of the shares in Arkema and had not furnished evidence capable of rebutting the presumption of imputed decisive influence. With respect to a claim concerning the method by which the Commission calculated the fine imposed, the GC confirmed that it was legitimate for the Commission to increase the basic fine by 70 per cent for deterrence purposes. It also upheld the decision to increase the basic fine on Arkena by 90 per cent for repeated infringements even though this was higher than the level imposed in some earlier decisions.