313
Annual Report -
2013
-
Vivendi
4
Financial Report | Statutory Auditors’ Report on the Consolidated Financial Statements |
Consolidated
Financial Statements
| Statutory Auditors’ Report on the Financial Statements | Statutory Financial Statements
Note 28. Litigation
■
■
Employee litigation arising from the transfer of
customer relations centers in Toulouse, Lyon,
and Poitiers
Following the transfer of the customer relations centers located in
Toulouse and Lyon to the Company Infomobile, and the center in
Poitiers to a subsidiary of the Bertelsmann Group, former employees
of these sites filed complaints with the industrial tribunals (
Conseils
de Prud’hommes
) of each of these cities, claiming unfair execution of
their employment contracts and fraudulent breach of Article L. 1224-1 of
the French Labor Code and the legal provisions relating to dismissal on
economic grounds. The findings of the courts on this issue in 2013 were
not consistent; the Court of Appeal of Toulouse sanctioned the SFR and
Teleperformance groups in half of the cases while the courts of Poitiers
and Lyon rendered judgments which were favorable to SFR. The cases
are at different stages of the appeal process.
■
■
Disputes with independent distributors
SFR, like other companies that use an indirect distribution model, faces
complaints by its distributors and, almost systematically, by its former
distributors. These recurring disputes concern the abrupt termination of
the contractual relationship, the abuse of economic dependence and/
or requests for reclassification of a distributor as a commercial agent,
and, more recently, applications for reclassification of a manager as a
branch manager and reclassification of the employment contracts of the
employees working at these points of sale as employment contracts
with SFR. The French Court of Cassation rendered three judgments
against SFR on the status of branch managers but the various Courts of
Appeal have decided in favor of SFR. On the issue of abrupt termination
of contractual relationships and the request for reclassification of
employees of the distributor as employees of SFR, apart from a few rare
exceptions the various courts have ruled in favor of SFR.
■
■
Parabole Réunion
In July 2007, the Parabole Réunion group filed a legal action before
the Paris Tribunal of First Instance following the termination of its
rights to exclusively distribute the TPS channels in Reunion Island,
Mayotte, Madagascar and Mauritius. Pursuant to a decision dated
September 18, 2007, Canal+ Group was prohibited, under fine, from
allowing the broadcast by third parties of these channels or those
replacement channels that have substituted these channels. Canal+
Group appealed this decision. In a ruling dated June 19, 2008, the Paris
Court of Appeal partially reversed the judgment and stated that these
replacement channels were not to be granted exclusively if the channels
were made available to third parties prior to the merger with TPS.
Parabole Réunion was again unsuccessful in its claims concerning the
content of the channels in question. On September 19, 2008, Parabole
Réunion appealed to the French Supreme Court. On November 10,
2009, the French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by
Parabole Réunion. In the context of this dispute, various jurisdictions
have taken the opportunity to recall that in the event of the loss of
the TPS Foot channel, Canal+ Group must make available to Parabole
Réunion a channel of similar attractiveness. Non-compliance with
this order would result in a penalty. On September 24, 2012, Parabole
Réunion filed a claim against Canal+ France, Canal+ Group and Canal+
Distribution before the enforcement magistrate of the Court of First
Instance of Nanterre (
Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre
) seeking
enforcement of this fine (a request for such enforcement having been
previously rejected by the enforcement magistrate of Nanterre, the Paris
Court of Appeal and the French Supreme Court). On November 6, 2012,
Parabole Réunion expanded its claim to cover the TPS Star, Cinecinema
Classic, Cult and Star channels. On April 9, 2013, the enforcement
magistrate dismissed in part Parabole Réunion’s claim and declared
the rest inadmissible. He took care to recall that Canal+ Group had
no legal obligation with respect to the content or the maintaining of
programming on channels made available to Parabole Réunion. Parabole
Réunion filed an appeal against this judgment.
In parallel, on August 11, 2009, Parabole Réunion filed a complaint
against Canal+ Group before the Paris Tribunal of First Instance,
requesting that the Tribunal order Canal+ Group to make available a
channel with a level of attractiveness similar to that of TPS Foot in 2006
and to pay damages.
On April 26, 2012, Parabole Réunion filed a complaint against Canal+
France, Canal+ Group and Canal+ Distribution before the Paris Tribunal
of First Instance asking the Tribunal to acknowledge the failure of the
companies of the group to fulfill their contractual obligations to Parabole
Réunion and their commitments to the Ministry of Economy.
These two actions have been consolidated into a single action.
■
■
Action brought by the French Competition
Authority regarding practices in the pay-TV
sector
On January 9, 2009, further to its voluntary investigation and a
complaint by Orange, the French Competition Authority sent Vivendi
and Canal+ Group a notification of allegations. It alleges that Canal+
Group has abused its dominant position in certain Pay-TV markets and
that Vivendi and Canal+ Group colluded with TF1 and M6, on the one
hand, and with Lagardère, on the other. Vivendi and Canal+ Group have
each denied these allegations.
On November 16, 2010, the French Competition Authority rendered a
decision in which it dismissed the allegations of collusion, in respect of
all parties, and certain other allegations, in respect of Canal+ Group. The
French Competition Authority requested further investigation regarding
fiber optic TV and catch-up TV, Canal+ Group’s exclusive distribution
rights on channels broadcast by the group and by independent channels
as well as the extension of exclusive rights on TF1, M6 and Lagardère
channels to fiber optic and catch-up TV. On October 30, 2013, the French
Competition Authority took over the investigation into these aspects of
the case.
■
■
Annulment of the decision authorizing the
acquisition of Direct 8, Direct Star, Direct
Productions, Direct Digital, and
Bolloré Intermédia
In November 2012 and January 2013, TF1 and M6 submitted to the
French Council of State an action for annulment of the decisions taken
by the French Competition Authority and the CSA (French authority for
media networks) authorizing the acquisition by Canal+ Group of Direct
8, Direct Star, Direct Productions, Direct Digital and Bolloré Intermédia.
On December 23, 2013, the French Council of State annulled the French
Competition Authority’s decision with effect from July 1, 2014, and
partially annulled the decision of the CSA. On January 15, 2014, the
transaction was re-notified to the French Competition Authority.
