Siemens 2010 Annual Report Download - page 276

6 To our shareholders 21 Corporate Governance 49 Combined management’s discussion and analysis

pany. The alleged claims relate to allegedly improper payments
by the Company in connection with the procurement of public
and private contracts. Siemens is assessing whether any basis
exists for such claims. Siemens and the competitor have en-
gaged in discussions; the outcome of these discussions is open.
As previously disclosed, a securities class action was filed in
December  against Siemens AG with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking dam-
ages for alleged violations of U.S. securities laws. The Company
is defending itself against the action.
Antitrust proceedings
As previously reported, in June , the Turkish Antitrust
Agency confirmed its earlier decision to impose a fine in an
amount equivalent to € on Siemens A.Ş. Turkey based on al-
leged antitrust violations in the traffic lights market. Siemens
A.Ş. Turkey has appealed this decision and this appeal is still
pending.
As previously reported, in February , the Norwegian Com-
petition Authority launched an investigation into possible an-
titrust violations involving Norwegian companies active in the
field of fire security, including Siemens Building Technologies
AS. In December , the Norwegian Competition Authority
issued a final decision that Siemens Building Technologies AS
had not violated antitrust regulations.
As previously reported, in February , the European Com-
mission launched an investigation into possible antitrust viola-
tions involving European producers of power transformers,
including Siemens AG and VA Technologie AG (VA Tech), which
Siemens acquired in July . The German Antitrust Author-
ity (Bundeskartellamt) has become involved in the proceeding
and is responsible for investigating those allegations that re-
late to the German market. Power transformers are electrical
equipment used as major components in electric transmission
systems in order to adapt voltages. The Company is cooperat-
ing in the ongoing investigation with the European Commis-
sion and the German Antitrust Authority. On October , ,
the European Commission imposed fines totaling €. on
seven companies with regard to a territorial market sharing
agreement related to Japan and Europe. Siemens was not fined
because it had voluntarily disclosed this aspect of the case to
the authorities. The German Antitrust Authority continues its
investigation with regard to the German market.
As previously reported, in April , Siemens AG and VA Tech
filed actions before the European Court of First Instance in
Luxemburg against the decisions of the European Commission
dated January , , to fine Siemens and VA Tech for al-
leged antitrust violations in the European Market of high-
voltage gas-insulated switchgear between  and .
Gas-insulated switchgear is electrical equipment used as a
major component for turnkey power substations. The fine im-
posed on Siemens amounted to €. and was paid by the
Company in . The fine imposed on VA Tech, which
Siemens AG acquired in July , amounted to €.. VA Tech
was declared jointly liable with Schneider Electric for a sepa-
rate fine of €.. The European Court of First Instance has not
yet issued a decision. In addition to the proceedings men-
tioned in this document, authorities in Brazil, the Czech Re-
public and Slovakia are conducting investigations into compa-
rable possible antitrust violations. In October , the High
Court of New Zealand dismissed corresponding charges
against Siemens. The decision is still appealable.
As previously reported, on October , , upon the Com-
pany ’s appeal, a Hungarian competition court reduced admin-
istrative fines imposed on Siemens AG for alleged antitrust vio-
lations in the market of high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear
from €. to €. and from €. to €. regarding VA
Technologie AG. The Company and the Competition Authority
both appealed the decision. In November , the Court of
Appeal confirmed the reduction of the fines. On December ,
, the Competition Authority filed an extraordinary appeal
with the Supreme Court. In December , Siemens AG was
notified that the Supreme Court had remanded the case to the
Court of Appeal, with instructions to take a new decision on
the amount of the fines. The extraordinary appeal from the
Competition Authority was rejected with legally binding effect
by the Court of Appeal on January , . On April , ,
the Competition Authority filed another extraordinary appeal
with the Supreme Court.
In connection with the January ,  decision of the Euro-
pean Commission regarding alleged antitrust violations in the
high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear market, claims are be-
ing made against Siemens. Among others, a claim was filed by
National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc. (National Grid) with
the High Court of England and Wales in November .
Twenty-one companies have been named as defendants, in-
cluding Siemens AG and various of its subsidiaries. National
Grid asserts claims in the aggregate amount of approximately
£ million for damages and compound interest. Siemens
believes National Grid’s claim to be without merit. As dis-
cussed, the European Commission’s decision has been ap-
pealed to the European Court of First Instance. On June ,