Half year report, IAS 34 para 15B (m), changes in contingent liabilities

Vodafone Group Plc – Half year report – 30 September 2017

Industry: telecoms

Notes to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements

For the six months ended 30 September 2017 (extract) 

13 Commitments, contingent liabilities and legal proceedings

There have been no material changes to the Group’s commitments, contingent liabilities or legal proceedings during the period, except as disclosed below.

Indian tax cases

In August 2007 and September 2007, Vodafone India Limited (‘VIL’) and Vodafone International Holdings BV (‘VIHBV’) respectively received notices from the Indian tax authority alleging potential liability in connection with an alleged failure by VIHBV to deduct withholding tax from consideration paid to the Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited group (‘HTIL’) in respect of HTIL’s gain on its disposal to VIHBV of its interests in a wholly-owned Cayman Island incorporated subsidiary that indirectly holds interests in VIL. Following approximately five years of litigation in the Indian courts in which VIHBV sought to set aside the tax demand issued by the Indian tax authority, in January 2012 the Supreme Court of India handed down its judgement, holding that VIHBV’s interpretation of the Income Tax Act 1961 was correct, that the HTIL transaction in 2007 was not taxable in India, and that consequently, VIHBV had no obligation to withhold tax from consideration paid to HTIL in respect of the transaction. The Supreme Court of India quashed the relevant notices and demands issued to VIHBV in respect of withholding tax and interest.

On 28 May 2012 the Finance Act 2012 became law. The Finance Act 2012, which amended various provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 with retrospective effect, contained provisions intended to tax any gain on transfer of shares in a non-Indian company, which derives substantial value from underlying Indian assets, such as VIHBV’s transaction with HTIL in 2007. Further, it seeks to subject a purchaser, such as VIHBV, to a retrospective obligation to withhold tax. VIHBV received a letter on 3 January 2013 from the Indian tax authority reminding it of the tax demand raised prior to the Supreme Court of India’s judgement and purporting to update the interest element of that demand to a total amount of INR142 billion, which amount includes principal and interest as calculated by the Indian tax authority but does not include penalties.

On 10 January 2014, VIHBV served an amended trigger notice on the Indian Government under the Netherlands-India Bilateral Investment Treaty (‘Dutch BIT’), supplementing a trigger notice filed on 17 April 2012, immediately prior to the Finance Act 2012 becoming effective, to add claims relating to an attempt by the Indian Government to tax aspects of the transaction with HTIL under transfer pricing rules. A trigger notice announces a party’s intention to submit a claim to arbitration and triggers a cooling off period during which both parties may seek to resolve the dispute amicably. Notwithstanding their attempts, the parties were unable to amicably resolve the dispute within the cooling off period stipulated in the Dutch BIT. On 17 April 2014, VIHBV served its notice of arbitration under the Dutch BIT, formally commencing the Dutch BIT arbitration proceedings.

In June 2016, the tribunal was fully constituted with Sir Franklin Berman KCMG QC appointed as presiding arbitrator. The Indian Government has raised objections to the application of the treaty to VIHBV’s claims and to the jurisdiction of the tribunal under the Dutch BIT. On 19 June 2017, the tribunal decided to try both these jurisdictional objections along with the merits of VIHBV’s claim in a trial now scheduled for February 2019.

Separately, on 15 June 2015, Vodafone Group Plc and Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Limited served a trigger notice on the Indian Government under the United Kingdom-India Bilateral Investment Treaty (‘UK BIT’) in respect of retrospective tax claims under the Income Tax Act 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act 2012). Although relating to the same underlying facts as the claim under the Dutch BIT, the claim brought by Vodafone Group Plc and Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Limited is a separate and distinct claim under a different treaty. On 24 January 2017, Vodafone Group Plc and Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Limited served a Notice of Arbitration on the Indian Government formally commencing the arbitration. The Indian Government has appointed a second arbitrator as required under the UK BIT under protest.

The Indian Government has indicated that it considers the arbitration under the UK BIT to be an abuse of process but this is strongly denied by Vodafone. On 22 August 2017, the Indian Government obtained an injunction from the Delhi High Court preventing Vodafone from progressing the UK BIT arbitration. Vodafone was not present when India obtained this injunction. On 26 October 2017, the Delhi High Court varied its order to permit Vodafone to participate in the formation of the UK BIT tribunal. A hearing is scheduled for 17 November 2017 in the Delhi High Court.

On 12 February 2016, VIHBV received a notice dated 4 February 2016 of an outstanding tax demand of INR221 billion (which included interest accruing since the date of the original demand) along with a statement that enforcement action, including against VIHBV’s indirectly held assets in India would be taken if the demand was not satisfied. On 29 September 2017, VIHBV received an electronically generated demand in respect of alleged principal, interest and penalties in the amount of INR190.7 billion. This demand does not appear to have included any element for alleged accrued interest liability.

Separate proceedings in the Bombay High Court taken against VIHBV to seek to treat it as an agent of HTIL in respect of its alleged tax on the same transaction, as well as penalties of up to 100% of the assessed withholding tax for the alleged failure to have withheld such taxes, were listed for hearing at the request of the Indian Government on 21 April 2016 despite the issue having been ruled upon by the Supreme Court of India. The hearing has since been periodically listed and then adjourned or not reached hearing. VIHBV and Vodafone Group Plc will continue to defend vigorously any allegation that VIHBV or VIL is liable to pay tax in connection with the transaction with HTIL and will continue to exercise all rights to seek redress including pursuant to the Dutch BIT and the UK BIT (subject to the Delhi High Court injunction). We have not recorded a provision in respect of the retrospective provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act 2012) and any tax demands based upon such provisions.

Other Indian tax cases

VIL and Vodafone India Services Private Limited (‘VISPL’) (formerly 3GSPL) are involved in a number of tax cases with total claims exceeding €2.4 billion plus interest, and penalties of up to 300% of the principal.

VISPL tax claims

VISPL has been assessed as owing tax of approximately €276 million (plus interest of €412 million) in respect of (i) a transfer pricing margin charged for the international call centre of HTIL prior to the 2007 transaction with Vodafone for HTIL assets in India; (ii) the sale of the international call centre by VISPL to HTIL; and (iii) the acquisition of and/or the alleged transfer of options held by VISPL for VIL. The first two of the three heads of tax are subject to an indemnity by HTIL. The larger part of the potential claim is not subject to any indemnity. VISPL unsuccessfully challenged the merits of the tax demand in the statutory tax tribunal and the jurisdiction of the tax office to make the demand in the High Court. The Tax Appeal Tribunal heard the appeal and ruled in the Tax Office’s favour. VISPL lodged an appeal (and stay application) in the Bombay High Court which was concluded in early May 2015. On 13 July 2015 the tax authorities issued a revised tax assessment reducing the tax VISPL had previously been assessed as owing in respect of (i) and (ii) above. In the meantime, (i) a stay of the tax demand on a deposit of £20 million and (ii) a corporate guarantee by VIHBV for the balance of tax assessed remain in place. On 8 October 2015, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in relation to the options and the call centre sale. The Tax Office has appealed to the Supreme Court of India. A hearing has been adjourned with no specified date.

Indian regulatory cases

Adjusted Gross Revenue (‘AGR’) dispute before the Supreme Court of India: VIL and others v Union of India

VIL has challenged the tribunal’s judgement dated 23 April 2015 to the extent that it dealt with the calculation of AGR, upon which licence fees and spectrum usage charges are based. The cumulative impact of the inclusion of these components is approximately €1.2 billion. The DoT also moved cross appeals challenging the tribunal’s judgement. In the hearing before the Supreme Court of India, the Court orally directed the DoT (Department of Telecommunications) not to take any coercive steps in the matter, which was adjourned. On 29 February 2016, the Supreme Court of India ordered that the DoT may continue to raise demands for fees and charges, but may not enforce them until a final decision on the matter.

Other cases in the Group

Germany: Mannesmann and Kabel Deutschland takeover – class actions

The German courts are determining the adequacy of the mandatory cash offer made to minority shareholders in Vodafone’s takeover of Mannesmann. This matter has been ongoing since 2001. The German courts are also determining whether “squeeze out” compensation is payable to affected Mannesmann shareholders in a similar proceeding. In September 2014, the German courts awarded compensation to minority shareholders of Mannesmann in the amount of €229.58 per share, which would result in a pay-out of €19 million (plus €13 million of accrued interest). The German courts also ruled that the “squeeze out” compensation should amount to €251.31 per share, which would result in a pay-out of €43.8 million (plus interest of €23 million of accrued interest). Vodafone has appealed these decisions. Similar proceedings were initiated by 80 Kabel Deutschland shareholders. These proceeding are in their early stages, and, accordingly, Vodafone believes that it is too early to assess the likely quantum of any claim.

In a hearing on 6 October 2016, the Court examined the Kabel Deutschland business plan which formed the main basis for the calculation of the offer per share. The next hearings are scheduled for 15 and 16 November 2017. 

Spain: Patent litigation

Vodafone Group Plc has been sued in Spain by TOT Power Control (‘TOT’), an affiliate of Top Optimized Technologies. The claim makes a number of allegations including patent infringement, with TOT seeking over €500 million from Vodafone Group Plc as well as an injunction against using the technology in question. Vodafone’s initial challenge of the appropriateness of Spain as a venue for this dispute was denied. Vodafone Group Plc appealed the denial and was partially successful. In a decision dated 30 October 2017, the court ruled that while it did have jurisdiction to hear the infringement case relating to the Spanish patent, it was not competent to hear TOT’s contractual and competition law claims. This decision is subject to appeal. TOT’s application for an injunction was unsuccessful and TOT is appealing. A trial date has now been set to commence on 10 September 2018.

Italy: British Telecom (Italy) v Vodafone Italy

The Italian Competition Authority concluded an investigation in 2007 when Vodafone Italy gave certain undertakings in relation to allegations that it had abused its dominant position in the wholesale market for mobile termination. In 2010, British Telecom (Italy) brought a civil damages claim against Vodafone Italy on the basis of the Competition Authority’s investigation and Vodafone Italy’s undertakings. British Telecom (Italy) seeks damages in the amount of €280 million for abuse of dominant position by Vodafone Italy in the wholesale fixed to mobile termination market for the period from 1999 to 2007. A court appointed expert delivered an opinion to the Court that the range of damages in the case should be in the region of €10 million to €25 million which was reduced in a further supplementary report published in September 2014 to a range of €8 million to €11 million. Judgement was handed down by the court in August 2015, awarding €12 million (including interest) to British Telecom (Italy).

British Telecom (Italy) has appealed the amount of the damages to the Court of Appeal of Milan. In addition, British Telecom (Italy) has asked again for a reference to the European Court of Justice for an interpretation of the European community law on antitrust damages. Vodafone Italy also filed an appeal which was heard on 13 September 2017 and a decision is awaited.

South Africa: GH Investments (‘GHI’) v Vodacom Congo

Vodacom Congo contracted with GHI to install ultra-low cost base stations on a revenue share basis. After rolling out three sites, GHI stopped and sought to renegotiate the terms. Vodacom Congo refused. GHI accused it of bad faith and infringement of intellectual property rights. In April 2015, GHI issued a formal notice for a claim of US$1.16 billion, although there does not seem to be a proper basis nor any substantiation for the compensation claimed. The dispute was submitted to mediation under the International Chamber of Commerce. A mediator was appointed in September 2015 who convened a first meeting which took place in early November 2015. A follow-up mediation meeting was scheduled for December 2015 but was postponed without a new date having been fixed. In July 2016, Vodacom filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration. In their response GHI revised their claim down to €237 million. Each party has appointed an arbitrator and the arbitrators have appointed a third arbitrator to act as chairman of the tribunal. A trial is scheduled for March 2018. GHI has failed to pay its share of the arbitration fees and has written to the ICC demanding that Vodacom Congo carry all the costs of the arbitration proceedings.

 

Advertisements