WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 27 | 28 || 30 | 31 |   ...   | 43 |

«Chief Executive‟s Report 9 Summary Operating and Financial Overview Directors‟ Report 15 Corporate Governance Report Report of the Remuneration ...»

-- [ Page 29 ] --

Based on information available to Ryanair Holdings, the following table summarizes the holdings of those shareholders holding 3% or more of the Ordinary Shares as of June 30, 2014, June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012, the latest practicable date prior to the Company‘s publication of its statutory annual report in each of the relevant years.

–  –  –

As of June 30, 2014, the directors and executive officers of Ryanair Holdings as a group owned 59,739,183 Ordinary Shares, representing 4.3% % of Ryanair Holdings‘ outstanding Ordinary Shares as of such date. See also Note 19(d) to the consolidated financial statements included herein. Each of our shareholders has identical voting rights with respect to its Ordinary Shares.

As of March 31, 2014, there were 1,383,237,668 Ordinary Shares outstanding.

Based on information available to Ryanair Holdings plc, the following table summarizes shareholdings in excess of 3% or more of the Ordinary Shares as of March 31, 2014, March 31 2013 and March 31, 2012.

–  –  –

The Company has not entered into any ―related party transactions‖ (except for remuneration paid by Ryanair to members of senior management and the board of directors as disclosed in note 27 to the consolidated financial statements) as defined in Item 7.B. of Form 20-F in the three fiscal years ending March 31, 2014 or in the period from March 31, 2014 to the date hereof.

Item 8. Financial Information

–  –  –

Legal Proceedings The Company is engaged in litigation arising in the ordinary course of its business. Although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of any current or pending litigation, management does not believe that any of such litigation will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company, except as described below.

EU State Aid-Related Proceedings. On December 11, 2002, the European Commission announced the launch of an investigation into the 2001 agreement among Ryanair, the Brussels (Charleroi) airport and the government of the Walloon Region of Belgium, the owner of the airport, which enabled the Company to launch new routes and base up to four aircraft at Brussels (Charleroi). The European Commission‘s investigation was based on an anonymous complaint alleging that Ryanair‘s arrangements with Brussels (Charleroi) constituted illegal state aid.

The European Commission issued its decision on February 12, 2004. As regards to the majority of the arrangements between Ryanair, the airport and the region, the European Commission found that although they constituted state aid, they were nevertheless compatible with the EC Treaty provisions and therefore did not require repayment. However, the European Commission also found that certain other arrangements did constitute illegal state aid and therefore ordered Ryanair to repay the amount of the benefit received in connection with those arrangements. On April 20, 2004, the Walloon Region wrote to Ryanair requesting repayment of such state aid, although it acknowledged that Ryanair could offset against the amount of such state aid certain costs incurred in relation to the establishment of the base, in accordance with the European Commission‘s decision. Ryanair made the requested repayment.

On May 25, 2004, Ryanair appealed the decision of the European Commission to the Court of First

Instance (―CFI‖), requesting the court to annul the decision because:

 the European Commission infringed Article 253 of the EC Treaty by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision; and  the European Commission misapplied Article 87 of the EC Treaty by failing to properly apply the Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP), which generally holds that an investment made by a public entity that would have been made on the same basis by a private entity does not constitute state aid.

In March 2008, Ryanair had its hearing before the CFI, and in December 2008, the CFI annulled the European Commission‘s decision. Ryanair was repaid the €4.0 million that the Commission had claimed was illegal state aid. The Belgian government has also withdrawn a separate €2.3 million action against Ryanair arising from the European Commission‘s decision.

In January 2010, the European Commission concluded that the financial arrangements between Bratislava airport in Slovakia and Ryanair do not constitute state aid within the meaning of EU rules, because these arrangements were in line with market terms. In July 2012, the European Commission similarly concluded that the financial arrangements between Tampere airport in Finland and Ryanair do not constitute state aid. In February 2014, the European Commission decided that the financial arrangements between Aarhus, Berlin (Schönefeld) and Marseille airports, and Ryanair, did not constitute state aid. On July 23, 2014 the European Commission announced a ‗no state aid‘ decision in respect of Dusseldorf (Weeze) airport, as well as findings of state aid to Ryanair in its arrangements with Pau, Nimes and Angouleme airports, ordering Ryanair to repay a total of approximately €9.7m of alleged aid. Ryanair will appeal these ‗aid‘ decisions to the EU General Court where proceedings are expected to take between 2 and 4 years.





Ryanair is facing similar legal challenges with respect to agreements with certain other airports, notably Lübeck, Alghero, Frankfurt (Hahn), Zweibrücken, Altenburg, Klagenfurt, (Stockholm) Vasteras, Paris (Beauvais), La Rochelle, Carcassonne, Cagliari, Brussels (Charleroi), Girona and Reus. These investigations are ongoing and Ryanair currently expects that they will conclude in mid to late 2014, with any European Commission decisions appealable to the EU General Court.

State aid complaints by Lufthansa about Ryanair‘s cost base at Frankfurt (Hahn) have been rejected by German courts, as have similar complaints by Air Berlin in relation to Ryanair‘s arrangement with Lubeck airport, but following a German Supreme Court ruling on a procedural issue in early 2011, these cases will be re-heard by lower courts. In addition, Ryanair has been involved in legal challenges including allegations of state aid at Alghero, Marseille and Berlin Schönefeld airports. The Alghero case (initiated by Air One) was dismissed in its entirety in April 2011. The Marseille case was withdrawn by the plaintiffs (subsidiaries of Air France) in May 2011. The Berlin Schönefeld, initiated by Germania, case was discontinued following the European Commission‘s finding in February 2014 that Ryanair‘s arrangement with the airport contained no state aid.

In September 2005, the European Commission announced new guidelines on the financing of airports and the provision of start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports, based on the European Commission‘s finding in the Brussels (Charleroi) case, which Ryanair successfully appealed. The guidelines applied only to publicly owned regional airports, and placed restrictions on the incentives these airports could offer airlines to deliver traffic. The guidelines applied only in cases in which the terms offered by a public airport are in excess of what a similar private airport would have offered. Ryanair deals with airports, both public and private, on an equal basis and receives the same cost agreements from both. The guidelines have therefore had no impact on Ryanair‘s business, although they have caused significant uncertainty in the industry in relation to what public airports may or may not do in order to attract traffic.

Ryanair believes that the positive decision by the CFI in the Brussels (Charleroi) case has caused the European Commission to rethink its policy in this area, and that the revised guidelines, published by the European Commission in April 2014, will provide more certainty in the industry as to how public airports may deal with airlines in offering incentives for traffic growth. However, adverse rulings in the above or similar cases could be used as precedents by other competitors to challenge Ryanair‘s agreements with other publicly owned airports and could cause Ryanair to strongly reconsider its growth strategy in relation to public or stateowned airports across Europe. This could in turn lead to a scaling back of Ryanair‘s growth strategy due to the smaller number of privately owned airports available for development. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of these proceedings, nor as to whether any unfavorable outcomes may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company.

In November 2007, Ryanair initiated proceedings in the CFI against the European Commission for its failure to take action on a number of state aid complaints Ryanair had submitted against Air France, Lufthansa, Alitalia, Volare and Olympic Airways. Following the European Commission‘s subsequent findings that illegal state aid had been provided to Air France and Olympic Airways, Ryanair withdrew the two relevant proceedings. The case related to Lufthansa concluded with the EU General Court‘s ruling in May 2011, in which the Court found that while the European Commission has not failed to act, it has unreasonably delayed the launch of the investigation, which justified Ryanair‘s action for failure to act. Consequently, the Court ordered the European Commission to pay 50% of Ryanair‘s costs in the proceedings. Similarly, in October 2011, the General Court found that the European Commission has failed to act on Ryanair‘s 2005-2006 complaints against state aid to Alitalia. The European Commission appealed the ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and on May 16, 2013, the European Commission‘s appeal was rejected.

In November 2008, Ryanair initiated proceedings in the CFI contesting the European Commission‘s refusal to grant Ryanair access to documents relating to the European Commission‘s state aid investigations at Hamburg (Lubeck), Tampere, Berlin (Schonefeld), Alghero, Pau, Aarhus, Bratislava and Frankfurt (Hahn) airports. These cases were heard on July 7, 2010 and a judgment was issued in December 2010. The CFI found that the European Commission had acted in line with applicable legislation, which highlighted the unfairness inherent in state aid procedures in the EU, whereby alleged beneficiaries of aid have no right of access to the European Commission‘s files and therefore cannot properly exercise their rights to defense and good administration. The CFI ordered the European Commission to pay Ryanair‘s costs in three of the eight access to documents cases.

As a result of rising airport charges and the introduction of an Air Travel Tax, in March 2009, of €10 on passengers departing from Irish airports on routes longer than 300 kilometers from Dublin Airport (€2 on shorter routes), Ryanair reduced its fleet at Dublin airport to 13 during winter 2010 (down from 22 in summer 2008 and 20 in winter 2008). Ryanair also complained to the European Commission about the unlawful differentiation in the level of the Irish Air Travel tax between routes within the EU. From April 2011, a single rate (€3) of the Air Travel Tax was introduced on all routes (and subsequently eliminated entirely in April 2014). In July 2012 the European Commission found that Ryanair, Aer Lingus and Aer Arann had received state aid from the Irish government by way of a two-tier air travel tax levied on passengers departing from Irish airports. Ryanair appealed this decision and a hearing in the EU General Court took place in June 2014 and judgment is expected within six months of the hearing. Also in July 2012, Ryanair issued proceedings before the Irish courts seeking repayment of the entire amount of the air travel tax paid by Ryanair during the period (€87.8 million) where it was two-tier on the basis of its illegality. In April 2013 the Irish government issued proceedings against Ryanair seeking recovery of €12 million of alleged state aid attributable to Ryanair, arising from the European Commission decision. There is a risk that Ryanair will be ordered by the Irish courts to pay the €12 million amount to the Irish government notwithstanding Ryanair‘s claim for repayment of the entire amount of the tax.

Matters Related to Investment in Aer Lingus. During the 2007 fiscal year, the Company acquired 25.2% of Aer Lingus. The Company increased its interest to 29.3% during the 2008 fiscal year, and to 29.8% during the 2009 fiscal year at a total aggregate cost of €407.2 million. Following the acquisition of its initial stake and upon the approval of the Company‘s shareholders, management proposed to effect a tender offer to acquire the entire share capital of Aer Lingus. This 2006 offer was, however, prohibited by the European Commission on competition grounds. Ryanair filed an appeal with the CFI, which was heard in July 2009. On July 6, 2010 the Court upheld the European Commission‘s decision. (see also: ―Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Business Overview‖).

The then EU Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, said on June 27, 2007 that, ―Since Ryanair is not in a position to exert de jure or de facto control over Aer Lingus, the European Commission is not in a position to require Ryanair to divest its minority shareholding, which is, by the way, not a controlling stake.‖ In October 2007, the European Commission also reached a formal decision that it would not force Ryanair to sell its shares in Aer Lingus. However, Aer Lingus appealed this decision before the CFI. In January 2008, the CFI heard an application by Aer Lingus for interim measures limiting Ryanair‘s voting rights, pending a decision of the CFI on Aer Lingus‘ appeal of the European Commission‘s decision not to force Ryanair to sell the Aer Lingus shares. In March 2008, the court dismissed Aer Lingus‘ application for interim measures. Aer Lingus‘ main appeal was heard in July 2009. On July 6, 2010, the court rejected Aer Lingus‘ appeal and confirmed that Ryanair cannot be forced to dispose of its 29.8% stake in Aer Lingus. Aer Lingus chose not to appeal this judgment to the Court of Justice of the EU. EU legislation may change in the future to require such a forced disposal. If eventually forced to dispose of its stake in Aer Lingus, Ryanair could suffer significant losses due to the negative impact on market prices of the forced sale of such a significant portion of Aer Lingus‘ shares.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 27 | 28 || 30 | 31 |   ...   | 43 |


Similar works:

«Managing Category C regrowth vegetation A self-assessable vegetation clearing code Effective from 2 December 2013 This publication has been compiled by Operations Support (Vegetation Management) of State Land Asset Management, Department of Natural Resources and Mines © State of Queensland, 2013. The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia...»

«COLDWELL BANKER D’ANN HARPER REALTORS MANUAL PARA INQUILINOS COLDWELL BANKER D’ANN HARPER REALTORS MANUAL PARA INQUILINOS CBDHR le da la Bienvenida CBDHR Personal Información General de la Oficina...6 Comunicación de Inquilino Las Llamadas Telefónicas Durante las Horas de Oficinas Correo de Voz Llamadas Después de las Horas Regulares Llamadas de Emergencia Solicitudes de Mantenimiento Cambio de Información Correo Electrónico Sitio Web Lista de Verificación para Moverse Contrato de...»

«Minutes of the 2008 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand Held at St Patrick’s College, Silverstream, Upper Hutt, 2 – 5 October 2008 Contents Indices Subject Index i Name Index ii Session 1 1 Thursday 2 October 11am Session 2 5 Thursday 2 October 6.30pm Session 3 25 Friday 3 October 8.30am Session 4 27 Friday 3 October 2pm Session 5 32 Friday 3 October 7pm Session 6 34 Saturday 4 October 8.30am Session 7 40 Saturday 4 October 2pm Session 8 45 Sunday 5 October...»

«Journal of Student Affairs 2015-2016 Volume XXV Table of Contents • 1 Table of Contents MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS STATE OF THE PROGRAM Jody Donovan and David A. McKelfresh CURRENT JOURNAL BOARD MEMBERS AND READER BOARD MANAGING EDITORS’ PERSPECTIVE Matthew Dempsey, LeRoy Ford, Kevin Ngo, and Colin Watrin ADVISORS’ PERSPECTIVE Teresa Metzger and Karla Perez-Velez ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAST LEADERSHIP Forces of Change Kevin Kruger ARTICLES Beyond Multiculturalism: Acknowledging AfroLatina/o...»

«LA EXPERIENCIA COMO CATEGORÍA EN EL CINE DE CHRIS MARKER Celina López Seco Resumo: O texto pretende discutir o trabalho de Chris Marker, no filme Sans Soleil/Sin Sol (1982), como um modo de construir conhecimento através da interpelação das imagens com a noção de experiência proposta por Charles S. Pierce. Nesse cruzamento entre a experiência e a interpelação das imagens, apresentamos a singularidade do cineasta francês na sua conceção do cinema enquanto arte e como prática do...»

«Spiritual Turning Points: A Metaphysical Perspective of the Seven Life Transitions Victoria Marina-Tompkins Life Transition one Birth We choose the moment we are born. The soul enters the body at the moment of the first breath, that rush of energy that ushers the soul into the physical body and which marks the beginning of what is called the first monadal transition, the first of seven major transitions for our sentient species. This is the intersection between the divine and the ordinary, when...»

«UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: AZBER AZHER ANSAR, BKY 07-31999 Debtor. Chapter 7 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR § 707(b) DISMISSAL This matter came before the Court on motion by the United States Trustee for dismissal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). Michael E. Ridgway appeared on behalf of the United States Trustee, and Craig W. Andresen appeared on behalf of the debtor. At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion, the Court allowed the parties time to submit...»

«Journal of Air Transportation World Wide Vol. 6, No. 2 – 2001 LEARNING STYLES OF PILOTS CURRENTLY QUALIFIED IN UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT1 Craig A. Kanske, Sky Views, L.L.C. Moore, Oklahoma ABSTRACT Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory was used to identify the predominant learning styles of pilots currently qualified in United States Air Force aircraft. The results indicate that these pilots show a significant preference for facts and things over people and feelings. By understanding the...»

«Population status and Distribution of Lesser Adjutant Stork Leptoptilos javanicus in Far western lowland (Bardia, Kailai and Kanchanpur Districts) Nepal A Report Submitted to Oriental Bird Club (OBC), UK. Researcher Suman Sharma Member Bird Conservation Nepal Advisors Mrs. Carollnskipp Hem Sagar Bara), Ph. D OBe conservation officer for Nepal lntrod uction: Global distribution oJ LesserA djutant: The Lesser Adjutant ranges from India, south through Myanmar and Thailand to Laos, Cambodia,...»

«IBM PARTNER SALES PROGRAMS – System x Enterprise Servers & BladeCenter As of April 8/08 IBM Partner CONFIDENTIAL AMD DIRECT CONNECT (US, CAN, LA, Direct, Partners) Price reductions for Opteron & Quadcore opportunities competing against Intel (approx 20-30%). After you get your best pricing from IBM, contact your AMD BDE to determine further discounts. Once the sale is finalized, proof of performance is required to pay rebate. Contact your AMD BDE or Brian.Casto@amd.com BladeCenter and System...»

«IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. C13-4102-LTS vs. ORDER THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND FIFTY-SIX CENTS ($32,820.56) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant, and concerning, CAROLE HINDERS and MRS. LADY’S INC., Claimants. I. INTRODUCTION This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 25) by plaintiff the United States of America (USA) to dismiss without prejudice. Claimants Carole...»

«Water Framework Directive (WFD): Note from the UK administrations on the development of environmental standards and conditions Water Framework Directive (WFD): Note from the UK administrations on the development of environmental standards and conditions Aim The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the UK administrations 1 to introduce environmental standards and conditions to help us with the classification and objective-setting processes which will underpin the river basin management...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.