Siemens 2014 Annual Report Download - page 294

108 A. To our Shareholders 131 B. Corporate Governance 171 C. Combined Management Report

Siemens AG to disclose the outcome of its internal investiga-
tions with respect to OTE. OTE seeks to obtain information with
respect to allegations of undue influence and / or acts of bribery
in connection with contracts concluded between Siemens AG
and OTE from calendar  to . At the end of July ,
OTE expanded its claim and requested payment of damages by
Siemens AG of at least €  million to OTE for alleged bribery
payments to OTE employees. At the end of October  OTE
increased its damage claim to the amount of at least €  mil -
lion. Siemens AG continues to defend itself against the ex-
panded claim.
As previously reported, in June , the Republic of Iraq filed
an action requesting unspecified damages against  named
defendants with the United States District Court for the South-
ern 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 trial court dismissed
the Republic of Iraq’s action. The Republic of Iraq appealed the
decision, which was then affirmed by the court of appeals. The
Republic of Iraq thereafter petitioned for an “en banc” review of
the appellate decision. The court of appeals has not yet granted
the request for review.
As previously reported, in September , the Israeli Antitrust
Authority requested that Siemens 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 appealed against
this decision in May .
Based on the above mentioned conclusion of the Israeli Anti-
trust Authority, two electricity consumer groups filed each a
motion to certify a class action for cartel damages against a
number of companies including Siemens AG with an Israeli
District Court in September . Both class actions seek com-
pensation for alleged damages, which are claimed to be in a
range of ILS  billion (approximately €  million) to ILS
. billion (approximately €  million). In addition, the Israel
Electric Corporation (IEC) filed at the end of December  a
separate claim for damages with the Israeli state court against
Siemens AG and other companies that allegedly formed a cartel
in the Israeli gas insulated switchgear market in the amount of
ILS . billion (approximately €  million). Siemens AG is
defending itself against the actions.
As previously reported, claims are being asserted against
Siemens in connection with a decision of the European Com-
mission rendered in January  regarding antitrust violations
in the high-voltage gas-insulated switchgear market, which has
become binding and final. Among such claims is a claim as-
serted by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc. (National
Grid) with the High Court of England and Wales in Novem-
ber . The Parties are no longer in dispute with each other
and settled the High Court action in fiscal year .
As previously reported, in May , Siemens Ltda. in Brazil
(Siemens Ltda. Brazil) entered into a leniency agreement with
the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) and
other relevant Brazilian authorities relating to possible anti-
trust violations in connection with several Brazilian metro
transport projects. In March , CADE commenced adminis-
trative proceedings, confirming Siemens Ltda. Brazil’s immu-
nity from administrative fines for the reported potential mis-
conduct. In connection with the above mentioned metro
transport projects, several Brazilian authorities initiated inves-
tigations relating to alleged criminal acts (corruptive payments,
anti-competitive conduct, undue influence on public tenders).
In March , Siemens Ltda. Brazil signed an agreement with
the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of São Paulo (“Public
Prosecutor’s Office São Paulo”) that formalizes and structures
the cooperation in the investigations.
In March , Siemens was informed that in connection with
the above mentioned metro transport projects the Public Pros-
ecutor’s Office São Paulo has requested criminal proceedings at
court into alleged violations of Brazilian antitrust law against a
number of individuals including current and former Siemens
employees.
In May  the Public Prosecutor’s Office São Paulo initiated a
law suit against Siemens Ltda. Brazil as well as other companies
and several individuals in the amount of BRL . billion
( approximately €  million) in relation to a train refurbish-
ment project that is not part of the above cooperation agree-
ment. A technical note issued by the Brazilian cartel authority
CADE earlier in calendar  had not identified any anticompet-
itive wrongdoing by Siemens Ltda. Brazil in relation to this proj-
ect. Siemens Ltda. Brazil is defending itself against the action.