Siemens 2013 Annual Report Download - page 309

253 D. Consolidated Financial Statements 357 E. Additional Information
254 D.1 Consolidated Statements of Income
255 D.2 Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
256 D.3 Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
257 D. Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
258 D.5 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
260 D.6 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
348 D.7 Supervisory Board and Managing Board

the Southern District of New York on the basis of findings
made in the “Report of the Independent Inquiry Committee
into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme.” Siemens
S.A.S. France, Siemens Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Turkey, and the
former Siemens subsidiary OSRAM Middle East FZE, Dubai, are
among the  named defendants. In February , the court
dismissed the Republic of Iraq ’s action with prejudice. The
Republic of Iraq has appealed this decision.
ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS
As previously reported, in February , the European Com-
mission launched an investigation into possible antitrust vio-
lations involving European producers of power transformers,
including Siemens AG and VA Technologie AG, Austria (VA
Tech), which Siemens acquired in July . The German Anti-
trust Authority (Bundeskartellamt) has become involved in the
proceeding and is responsible for investigating those allega-
tions that relate to the German market. Power transformers are
electrical equipment used as major components in electric
transmission systems in order to adapt voltages. In October
, the European Commission imposed fines totaling €
million 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
continued its investigation with regard to the German market.
In September , the German Antitrust Authority and the
Company ended the legal proceeding by entering into a settle-
ment agreement. Siemens agreed to pay a fine in the single-
digit € million range.
As previously reported, in April , Siemens AG and former
VA Tech companies filed actions before the European Court of
First Instance in Luxemburg against the decisions of the Euro-
pean Commission dated January , , to fine Siemens and
former VA Tech companies for alleged antitrust violations in
the European Market of high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear
between calendar  and . Gas-insulated switchgear is
electrical equipment used as a major component for power
substations. The fine imposed on Siemens AG amounted to
€. million and was paid by the Company in calendar .
The fine imposed on former VA Tech companies, which
Siemens AG acquired in July , amounted to €. million.
In addition, former VA Tech companies were declared jointly
liable with Schneider Electric for a separate fine of €. mil-
lion. In March , the European Court of First Instance dis-
missed the case regarding the fine imposed on Siemens AG
and re-calculated the fines for the former VA Tech companies.
Former VA Tech companies were declared jointly liable with
Schneider Electric for a fine of €. million. Siemens AG and
former VA Tech companies appealed the decision in May .
In addition to these proceedings, authorities in Brazil, the
Czech Republic and Slovakia are conducting investigations
into comparable possible antitrust violations. In October ,
the High Court of New Zealand dismissed corresponding
charges against Siemens.
As previously reported, in September , the Israeli Antitrust
Authority requested Siemens to present its legal position
regarding an alleged anti-competitive arrangement between
April  and April  in the field of gas-insulated switch-
gear. In September , the Israeli Antitrust Authority con-
cluded that Siemens AG was a party to an illegal restrictive
arrangement regarding the Israeli gas-insulated switchgear
market between  and , with an interruption from
October  to February . The Company is considering to
appeal this decision.
Based on the above mentioned conclusion of the Israel Anti-
trust Authority, electricity consumer groups filed two class-ac-
tions for cartel damages against a number of companies in-
cluding Siemens AG with an Israeli District Court in September
. The plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged damages,
which are claimed to amount to € million. In addition, ac-
cording to an ad hoc-notice of the Israel Electric Corporation
(IEC), the IEC is concurrently preparing to file a separate claim
for damages against Siemens AG and other companies that al-
legedly formed a cartel in the Israeli gas-insulated switchgear
market. Siemens AG is defending itself.
As previously reported, in November , the Greek Compe-
tition Authority searched the premises of Siemens S.A. in
Athens in response to allegations of anti-competitive practices
in the field of telecommunication and security. In August ,
the proceedings were discontinued without sanctions based
on the settlement agreement between Siemens and the Greek
State mentioned above.
In connection with the January ,  decision of the
European Commission regarding alleged antitrust violations in
the high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear market, claims are
being 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 .
 companies have been named as defendants, including
Siemens AG and various of its subsidiaries. National Grid orig-
inally asserted claims in the aggregate amount of approxi-
mately £ million for damages and compound interest. In
November , National Grid increased the aggregate amount
to £ million due to accrued compound interest. Siemens
believes National Grid’s claim to be without merit. As discussed,
the European Commission’s decision has been appealed to the