Belgium, France and Luxembourg (hereinafter: ‘the Member States concerned’) notified to the Commission an initial restructuring plan for Dexia on 16, 17 and 18 February 2009 respectively.

On 9 February 2010 the Member States concerned sent the Commission information on the additional measures planned to supplement the initial restructuring plan notified in February 2009.

Since the summer of 2011 Dexia has encountered further difficulties and the Member States concerned have envisaged additional aid measures.

On 18 October 2011 the Member States concerned informed the Commission of a set of potential new measures for a new plan for the restructuring or dismantling of Dexia. As part of the set of new measures, on 21 October 2011 Belgium notified to the Commission a measure involving recourse by DBB to the emergency liquidity assistance (hereinafter: ‘ELA’) with a guarantee by the Belgian State. The measure enables DBB to grant financing to Dexia Crédit Local SA (hereinafter: ‘DCL’).

On 14 December 2011 France, Belgium and Luxembourg also notified to the Commission, as part of the set of new measures, a draft temporary guarantee by the Member States concerned on the refinancing of Dexia SA and DCL (hereinafter: ‘temporary refinancing guarantee’).

On 21 and 22 March 2012 the Member States concerned notified to the Commission an orderly resolution plan for Dexia.

On 25 May 2012 the Member States concerned notified to the Commission a request to extend the temporary refinancing guarantee. On 31 May 2012 the Commission adopted two decisions.

Following the publication of the formal investigation procedure on 3 April 2012, the Commission received comments from two third parties.

One of the comments received (hereinafter: ‘comment A’) from an investors’ association concerns the level of the purchase price. The association takes the view that the sale price for Dexia BIL is too low, in particular in the light of Dexia BIL’s good results in the past.

The comments (hereinafter: ‘comment B’) by the other third party, a shareholder in Dexia SA, expressed doubts about the behaviour of Dexia SA, Dexia BIL and the individuals and bodies supposed to supervise these companies since 1998. The shareholder also believes that Dexia SA does not provide sufficient information to its shareholders. The shareholder also takes the view that the minutes of the Annual General Meetings since 1999, the annexes relating to its own statements at those meetings, and all the correspondence between itself, Dexia SA, Dexia BIL and its managers should have been sent by Dexia SA to the potential buyers of Dexia BIL.

Dexia SA stresses that the sale of Dexia BIL is an important stage in the stabilisation of Dexia BIL after the outflows of deposits that took place at the beginning of October 2011. It is essential to provide confirmation as soon as possible to the parties to the transaction that the sale of Dexia BIL contains no aid.

Since clause 3.3.5 has not been included in the final contracts for the transfer of shares that replaced the MoU, these concerns are groundless.

The many contacts between Dexia SA and potential buyers since 2009, in conjunction with the official announcement on 6 October 2011 of the potential sale of Dexia BIL to an international group of investors, had made public the planned sale of Dexia BIL. Exclusive negotiations were not formally opened until more than two weeks later, so any other serious candidates interested in buying Dexia BIL would have had more than enough time to express their interest. Moreover, the conditions of sale of Dexia BIL were determined by Dexia SA with Precision Capital during arm’s length negotiations between private operators, under their own liability and without committing state resources. Furthermore, it was urgent to find a buyer for Dexia BIL in order to protect the bank’s depositors and customers, to preserve the bank’s value, and to reduce the risks of contagion to the rest of the financial system. Under these circumstances, the sale process for Dexia BIL may be regarded as an open, transparent and non-discriminatory process, such as to ensure the formation of a market price. It does not, therefore, contain any state aid.

The fairness opinion dating from December 2011 related to the new scope of Dexia BIL (sold businesses), which is confirmed by the updated fairness opinion dated 30 May 2012.

The sale price is based on a Core Equity Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel III of 9 % at the time the sale was completed. If there is a difference between this level and the level of capital when the transfer is completed, the adjustment clause guarantees that the difference will be repaid by the buyers or the seller and/or that the sale price will be adjusted. Under these conditions, Dexia SA takes the view that the valuation of shareholdings or assets excluded from the transaction should not be taken into account when determining the market price.

The sale of Dexia BIL cannot include new aid because the acquisition by the State of Luxembourg is taking place without it injecting new capital into Dexia BIL. In that context, Dexia SA emphasises that, in the absence of additional aid, the sale of Dexia BIL does not distort competition, so it is not necessary to impose additional measures to limit distortions of competition. In any event, the reduction in the size of Dexia BIL through the businesses excluded from the sale is sufficiently large not to require additional measures.

Luxembourg takes the view that the sale of Dexia BIL is a private-market solution that does not contain any state aid.

Luxembourg points out that the planned sale of Dexia BIL was officially announced on 6 October 2011, i.e. before the announcement of the additional guarantees on new refinancing granted by the Member States concerned to Dexia SA and DCL.

The Luxembourg authorities maintain that there is no advantage for Dexia SA or Dexia BIL arising from the acquisition by the Luxembourg State of a 10 % holding in Dexia BIL because the acquisition took place under market conditions, and the price paid and the terms were the same as for Precision Capital.

In the opinion of the Luxembourg authorities, an informal tender process, organised to a tight deadline and using specific procedures dictated by the circumstances, could be regarded as an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure which ensures the formation of a market price. The Luxembourg authorities also point out that a fairness opinion dated 10 December 2011 and the update of 30 May 2012 conclude that the price is fair in the current market context and that the Commission had already accepted that the valuation of a company may be in line with a market price on the basis of a fairness opinion carried out by an independent expert.

Since the end of 2008, Dexia BIL has constantly been a net provider of liquidity to the other companies in the group. As for the new temporary guarantee approved provisionally by the Commission on 21 December 2011, Dexia BIL was not a guaranteed company and does not benefit from this temporary guarantee.

Furthermore, the Luxembourg authorities point out that Dexia BIL will have a strong liquidity position after the sale, will focus on retail banking and private banking, and will have cut its ties to the residual Dexia group by disposing of the legacy portfolio and Dexia LDG and selling its holdings in RBCD and DAM. Likewise, the MoU is based on an absence of financing by Dexia BIL of Dexia SA or other companies in the residual group post-sale.

Luxembourg is also requesting that Dexia BIL no longer be subject to the conditions and commitments laid down in the Decision of 26 February 2010, or to the new restructuring and orderly resolution plan for Dexia to be drawn up under the Decision of 21 December 2011. Being subject to the restructuring plan approved by the Decision of 26 February 2010 and to the conditions and commitments provided for by the plan is linked to Dexia BIL belonging to the Dexia group, which is identified as the sole beneficiary of the aid granted in previous decisions. Moreover, this point is evident in most of the commitments under the restructuring plan for Dexia, which apply to Dexia or Dexia SA and concern Dexia BIL only to the extent that it is a subsidiary of the group and forms a single economic unit with Dexia SA. In any event, the sale of Dexia BIL does not contain any state aid and is carried out at a market price.

Luxembourg, in its observations on the opening decision, confirms that clause 3.3.5 has not been included in the final share purchase contracts that replaced the MoU, and that these concerns are groundless.

The Luxembourg authorities also confirm that the scope of the fairness opinion coincides exactly with the scope of the sold businesses. In addition, the adjustment mechanism in relation to the exact level of 9 % Common Equity Tier 1 under Basel III ensures that the value of the businesses excluded from the transaction (recital (36)) does not have any positive or negative financial impact for the buyer. The Luxembourg authorities also refer to the fairness opinion updated at the end of May 2012, which reached the same conclusions. The sale price for Dexia BIL may therefore be regarded as a market price, which excludes any transfer of aid.

Finally, the Luxembourg authorities agree with the comments by Dexia SA. (section 4 above).

Article 107(1) TFEU lays down that ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain enterprises or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.

Dexia BIL is active at European level and therefore clearly competes with other foreign market operators. The Commission therefore takes the view that any potential aid contained in the sale of Dexia BIL would affect trade between Member States and distort or threaten to distort competition.

The Commission, in its Decision of 26 February 2010, has already established that the aid received by Dexia in the form of capital, financing guarantees, ELA backed by a sovereign guarantee and support for impaired assets (FSA measure) did constitute state aid (granted by Belgium, Luxembourg and France). It is therefore necessary to verify that the sold business does not retain the benefit of the aid previously received by Dexia.

With regard to the subject of the sale, the scope of the sold businesses is limited to the retail and private banking businesses, which do not appear to have been the cause of the Dexia group’s problems requiring state aid to be granted. The Commission also notes that the part of the portfolio of legacy securities held by Dexia BIL, which was linked to the group’s refinancing problems that contributed to the need for state aid authorised by the Decision of 26 February 2010, is not included in the sold businesses. From a quantitative perspective, the scope of the sold businesses accounts for approximately 60 % of Dexia BIL’s balance-sheet total and [0-10] % of the Dexia group’s balance-sheet total.

There is no link between the private buyer Precision Capital and the current shareholders in Dexia SA, which therefore means that the private buyer is independent in relation to Dexia SA when it takes decisions and implements its strategy in relation to the sold businesses of Dexia BIL.

Moreover, an acquisition at the market price for the sold businesses would ensure that the buyer pays an adequate price for the aid which this part of Dexia BIL could have benefited from as a company in the Dexia group and that the transaction price for the sale of Dexia BIL does not, therefore, contain any aid.

Following the opening decision, the Commission received additional information about the evaluation of the market price.

The Commission notes that the sale of Dexia BIL was subject to a first fairness opinion by a third party on 10 December 2011, which was updated on 30 May 2012. The evaluations were carried out using three different methods: (i) discounted cash flows to equity on the basis of the cash flow distributable to shareholders, subject to compliance with the Core Tier 1 regulatory ratios; (ii) price-to-book ratio, on the basis of excess profitability in relation to the cost of capital; (iii) comparable listed companies. The first fairness opinion by a third party, dated 10 December 2011, resulted in a price in a band between EUR [600-700] and [800-900] million. The updated assessment, dated 30 May 2012, confirms that the assessment took into account exactly the scope of the sold businesses and comes to the same conclusions, namely that the fair price lies within a range of between EUR [600-700] and [800-900] million. The Commission has examined these fairness opinions. It notes that the evaluations are based on standard methods generally applicable in this field and take into account the precise conditions and scope of the transaction.

The price of the transaction, EUR 730 million, lies within the range of the fairness opinions. There is therefore no indication that the price paid is below or above the market price. The sale price for Dexia BIL may therefore be regarded as a market price, which also excludes any transfer on the sale of any potential aid previously granted to Dexia.

Certain of Dexia BIL’s activities are excluded from the scope of the sale (recital (36)). These activities will be transferred to Dexia before the transaction is completed, with a clause for the recovery of the net proceeds from the transfers by Dexia BIL. The Commission notes that the additional information received subsequent to the opening decision confirms that the valuation of the activities excluded from the transaction has no bearing on establishing the market price. The sale price is based on a Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel III of exactly 9 % at the time the sale is completed. If there is a difference between this level and the level of capital when the transfer is completed, the adjustment clause guarantees that the difference will be repaid by the buyers or the seller and/or that the sale price will be adjusted. The valuation of shareholdings or assets excluded from the scope of the transaction should not, therefore, be taken into account when establishing the market price. The adjustment clause was also taken into account in the fairness opinions.

In the opening decision, the Commission noted that the Luxembourg State was participating in the sale of Dexia BIL as a buyer of a 10 % holding under the same conditions as Precision Capital. It is clear, therefore, that the holding by Luxembourg involves state resources. Given that Luxembourg is participating on the same conditions as Precision Capital, the Commission takes the view that in principle Luxembourg is acting as a private investor, which excludes any aid in relation to Luxembourg's 10 % holding.

In the opening decision, the Commission also noted that Precision Capital and the Luxembourg State planned to remove clause 3.3.5. The Commission has noted that under this clause, Dexia SA would undertake to obtain sovereign guarantees in favour of the buyer of Dexia BIL. Activation of the clause would potentially call on state resources in the form of guarantees. Moreover, the very existence of the clause would be likely to grant benefits to the buyer of Dexia BIL. Following the opening decision, the Commission received additional information confirming that clause 3.3.5 had not been included in the final share purchase contracts that replaced the MoU. The Commission therefore concludes that, since the clause was not implemented and has been abandoned, there is no aid in this regard.

For the reasons set out above, the Commission concludes that the measure comprising the sale of Dexia BIL does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In particular, it does not constitute new aid for Dexia SA or for Dexia BIL,