Deutsche Bahn: ‘DB Schenker sale to CVC would have been illegal’
Deutsche Bahn (DB) is legally obliged to sell DB Schenker to DSV. A decision in favour of contender CVC would have constituted illegal aid, DB says. CVC’s protest against the DSV win in the DB Schenker race is supposedly based on a faulty analysis of the submitted offers.
“Like any responsible owner, DB is selling its logistics subsidiary DB Schenker at the end of a clearly structured sales process to the party that made the highest and most attractive bid, and that was DSV. We are also obliged to do so, otherwise this would constitute illegal aid”, DB says in a statement.
DSV submitted the best offer for DB Schenker, putting it ahead of equity firm CVC, according to DB. After the initial deadline, DSV even raised the stakes, but that had no impact on the sale decision.
Legal obligation
DB says that it is obliged to sell Schenker to the highest bidder. “DB conducted a tendering process that was non-discriminatory for all participants in accordance with EU law. The evaluation of the binding offers resulted in a clear ranking. This is why DB was only allowed to sell its logistics subsidiary DB Schenker to DSV. A sale to CVC, on the other hand, would have been illegal on the basis of the submitted offer.”
The German rail operator also dismisses allegations of favouring DSV during the sale process. “In no way and at no time was the unsuccessful bidder CVC disadvantaged. After evaluation, CVC’s offer of August 22, 2024 was far behind DSV’s offer in terms of both price and contractual risk distribution. This also applies to the re-participation option additionally offered by CVC”, DB explains. It says that CVC’s offers, including later amended ones, were “always inferior to the successful offer from DSV.”
CVC protest
CVC protested the decision to sell Schenker to DSV, maintaining that its offer was better than DSV’s. However, DB says that CVC’s analysis of the bids is faulty: “DB has submitted the report submitted by the unsuccessful bidder CVC on the afternoon of September 26, 2024 to its legal advisors for review. After a first review, it is already obvious that the report incorrectly mixes EU state aid and procurement law requirements with economic facts and thus comes to incorrect conclusions.”
