In the case of Kahla II, the Commission would point out that it is the successor to a bankrupt company and is therefore likely to have lost the confidence of a number of customers, suppliers and financial institutions. Even the acquisition of assets was thus dependent on state support.
En ce qui concerne Kahla II, la Commission rappelle que cette société a succédé à une entreprise en liquidation et a donc vraisemblablement perdu la confiance d'une série de clients, de fournisseurs et d'établissements financiers.