On 7 June 2011, the General Court of the European Union held that there is a presumption that a wholly-owned subsidiary does not decide independently regarding its conduct in the market. It went further to state that, according to settled case-law, the EC may impose a fine on the parent company, without its being required to establish the individual involvement of the parent company in the infringement. This presumption can be rebutted if the parent company can show that the relevant subsidiary conducted itself independently on the market during the period of the infringement. The General Court also held that the same presumption applies when a parent company holds almost all of the capital of its subsidiary. The General Court, however, did reduce the penalties imposed on Arkema France and its subsidiaries, which the EC had increased by 200% for an adequate deterrence effect. The reduction in the fine was based on the fact that Arkema and its subsidiaries were no longer controlled by Total and Elf Aquitaine as from 18 May 2006, when Arkema was floated on the stock exchange, that is, a few days before the Commission adopted its decision. The fine was lowered because the objective of deterrence can be legitimately attained only by reference to the situation of the undertaking on the day the fine is imposed.