TheChek News Flow

Weekly Performance

Dow-0.12% S&P+0.43% Nasdaq+0.83% Russell+2.14% EuroStoxx-2.63% FTSE -0.89% CAC-2.06% Dax-1.78% Ibex -3.36% MIB-3.80% SMI -1.74% Nikkei -1.14% Hang Seng +1.80% CSI +4.14% Shanghai +4.17% Brazil +3.20%

Macro :

- Fed’s Mester Sees Gradual Rate Increases Despite Weak Jobs Data

- U.K. Poll on EU Shows 43% Remain, 41% Leave: Opinium Poll

- Bill Gross Says Chance of Fed Raising Rates 25%: Nikkei

- SNB Vice President Zurbruegg: SNB could cut rates further and could intervene in FX market at any time it deems necessary

- U.S., China Make Great Progress in Currency Talks, Lew Says

Keep an eye on :

- ALPH SW : Alpiq Is Struggling to Find Buyers for Hydropower Plants: SZ

- BMPS IM : Profumo Says Worst Over for Italy’s Banking Crisis: La Stampa

- BP IM : ECB Urges Banco Popolare to Reduce NPL Stock: Offering Documents

- BAYN GY : Bayer Chairman Indicated Willingness to Raise Bid Somewhat: FBN

- BAYN GY : Bayer Chairman Said to Hold ‘Secret’ Meeting With Investors: Fox

- BAYN GY : Bayer May Have to Sell Units After Monsanto Deal, FAZ Says

- CSGN VX : U.K.’s FCA Probes Credit Suisse, VTB Over Mozambique: WSJ

- CNX US : Greenlight Capital’s Einhorn Confirmed Selling 7m Consol Shares

- DL NA : Delta Lloyd Attracts Buyers for Stake in Van Lanschot: Telegraaf

- EDF FP : EDF, RTE, CDC Choose Banks to Prepare RTE Sale, Figaro Reports

- EDF FP : CEZ submits indicative offer to buy French EDF's Polish assets

- ENI IM : Eni to Compete for Central Role in Libya, CEO Tells La Stampa

- KU2 GY : Kuka will not see bid arranged by German Economy Minister - Boersen-Zeitung

- KU2 GY : Kuka CEO Would Evaluate Potential Counterbid to Midea Plan: FAS

- LISN SW : Lindt’s Tanner Eyes Expansion Into Chocolate Bar Segment: SZ

- MFRM US : Mattress Firm Holder Berkshire Partners Boosts Stake to 14.1%

- MRK US : Merck & Co. Starts Two Phase 3 Studies in First-Line Lung Cancer

- NESN VX : Nestle Temporarily Halted Venezuela Production Lines: SZ

- RCS IM : RCS public offer by Investindustrial consortium likely to get regulatory clearance on 10 June

- RDSA NA : Shell Confirms Leak on Nigeria Farcados Pipeline After Attack

- SAB LN : Asahi Explores $7.3b Bid for SABMiller Beers, Sunday Times Says

- SoftBank (9984 JP) : Softbank plans to sell 248M shares back to Gungho Online (3765 JP) at ¥294/shr - press - Softbank said to be selling most of its stake in Gungho to help raise money to shore up its balance sheet, and comes on the heels of its announced sale of $10B of its Alibaba stake.

- UHR VX : Swatch Group Signs Battery Deal With Geely, Hayek Tells NZZamS

- SREN VX : Swiss Life’s Signer: Aim at Property Buys of ~CHF1B/Year: FuW

- TSLA US : Tesla May Purchase Batteries From Samsung SDI, Nikkei Says

- TKA GY : Thyssenkrupp to Restructure Wharfs as Submarine Deal Fails: Welt

- LANS NA : Delta Lloyd Attracts Buyers for Stake in Van Lanschot: Telegraaf

- VBLT US : VBL Therapeutics Rises 76% Post-Mkt; Study Met Primary Endpoint

- VOW3 GY : VW to Recall 190,000 Cars in India to Fix Emissions Issue: PTI

- WPP LN : WPP Holders Set to Protest CEO Sorrell’s Pay Package: Telegraph

Des visiteurs utilisent smartphone lors jour d’ouverture Mobile World Congress 2015 Barcelone.

Des visiteurs utilisent leur smartphone lors du jour d’ouverture du Mobile World Congress en 2015 à Barcelone. - Josep Lago/AFP

En Europe, la tendance est au gonflement des offres data, mais sans hausse de prix.

C'était l'un des grands espoirs des opérateurs télécoms. Grâce à la 4G, ils allaient pouvoir renouer avec la croissance des revenus et des marges. Cela ne s'est pas vraiment passé comme prévu. Trois ans après ses débuts, la question de la monétisation du très haut débit mobile reste posée, en France comme dans le reste de l'Europe.

Selon une note du cabinet Raymond James, les 50 premiers opérateurs ont affiché en moyenne une baisse de 0,5 % de leur chiffre d'affaires mobile au ­premier trimestre. Certes, il y a du mieux par rapport aux trimestres précédents, mais cela reste décevant, considère le cabinet, compte tenu de la pénétration de la 4G (51 % des forfaits en Europe) et de la hausse croissante du volume de data échangées.

A ce titre, la tendance qu'ont les opérateurs à gonfler les enveloppes data sans augmenter les prix n'est pas forcément de nature à rassurer sur le potentiel de monétisation de cette technologie. En France, Free avait dégainé le premier l'an dernier en poussant le plafond de consommation de 20 Go à 50 Go. La semaine dernière, Bouygues Telecom s'est engouffré dans la brèche en offrant la 4G illimitée le week-end (pour des forfaits 5 Go et plus) et en octroyant plus de data pour ses forfaits moyen et haut de gamme.

Faire basculer vers le forfait opérateur

Aux Pays-Bas, c'est T-Mobile qui vient d'octroyer gratuitement 8 Go supplémentaires sur son offre à 12 Go. Au Danemark aussi, Telenor a relevé généreusement les ­plafonds de ses forfaits. « C'est la tendance un peu partout en Europe, sauf en Espagne », explique Stéphane Beyazian, chez Raymond James. Chez les opérateurs qui pratiquent de telles offres, on met en avant l'évolution des usages et la croissance naturelle de la consommation de data avec la 4G.

« Il y a une certaine logique dans les ­télécoms à changer les offres et à proposer plus au fur et à mesure de l'avancée des technologies », remarque un bon connaisseur du secteur. En outre, le gonflement des enveloppes data concerne des forfaits plutôt haut de gamme et représente une incitation à faire basculer vers le forfait supérieur, donc à payer plus. « Le modèle économique d'un ­Bouygues Telecom n'est pas bouleversé avec ces offres, juge Vincent Maulay, analyste chez Oddo. Cela aurait été plus problématique si cela concernait l'entrée de gamme. »

Le message envoyé à destination des consommateurs peut néanmoins être ambigu. « Ce n'est pas forcément une bonne idée d'offrir trop de data dans les forfaits. On laisse à penser que la data ne vaut pas grand-chose, regrette un dirigeant d'opérateur français. Or il y a un réseau et des investissements derrière. Ce n'est pas rien, cela a un coût. » Reste à savoir si ce type d'offre peut se généraliser chez tous les opérateurs.

Contexte ultraconcurrentiel

Compte tenu du contexte ultraconcurrentiel dans le mobile, c'est probable. « Gonfler les enveloppes data est plutôt une stratégie de conquête de clients », nuance Sylvain Chevallier, associé chez BearingPoint. « Il y a aussi une volonté pour certains opérateurs de tester le marché, de voir comment se comportent les clients », poursuit-il.

Offrir ou ne pas offrir de la data en plus ? En Finlande, on ne se pose pas la question en ces termes. Alors que la majorité des opérateurs européens a basé son modèle de monétisation sur le volume de data disponibles, le groupe Elisa a décidé de facturer la technologie. Pour bénéficier de la 4G, ses clients 4G paient un supplément de 8 euros par rapport aux forfaits classiques, mais jouissent d'une consommation illimitée. Résultat : l'opérateur vient d'enregistrer une croissance des revenus de 8 %, avec seulement un quart d'abonnés 4G. Et la ­consommation moyenne par abonné s'élève à 8 Go. De quoi faire rêver.

Le verdict de l’anti-trust sur les projets de distribution exclusive de BeIN par Canal+ est attendu en milieu de semaine.Si la position du gendarme de la concurrence est trop dure, Canal+ pourrait renoncer.

Les projets de distribution exclusive des chaînes BeIN Sports par Canal pour permettre à la filiale de Vivendi de repartir à la conquête des abonnés en France se présentent mal. Selon nos informations, l'Autorité de la concurrence devrait en effet rendre en milieu de semaine un verdict imposant des conditions difficiles à accepter pour la filiale de Vivendi.

Alors que les pertes de la chaîne cryptée française risquent selon le groupe audiovisuel de flamber jusqu'à 475 millions d'euros en 2017, son patron Vincent Bolloré s'est dit est prêt à verser entre 300 et 400 millions d'euros par an au groupe qatari pour pouvoir distribuer lui-même BeIN Sports. Car fort de ces contenus, Canal+ estime qu'il pourrait retrouver un leadership incontesté sur le sport à la télé ce qui lui permettrait de remodeler ainsi le marketing de son offre pour séduire de nouveaux abonnés ou faire dépenser plus son actuelle base de clients.

Des « remèdes » difficilement acceptables

Pour cela, n'en déplaise au camp Vivendi qui juge cette étape administrative anormale, il faut cependant convaincre l'antitrust. Celui-ci doit en effet lever une injonction concernant la distribution de chaînes premium. Une mesure imposée au groupe Canal en 2012 parce qu'il n'avait pas respecté ses engagements de 2006 suite à la fusion entre son bouquet CanalSat et TPS. Problème pour la filiale du groupe Vivendi, l'autorité présidée par Bruno Lasserre n'est visiblement pas disposer à autoriser ce rapprochement BeIN-Canal sans que ne soient mis en place certains « remèdes » sans doute difficilement acceptables pour le champion français de la télévision payante.

Bien que Canal estime que le paysage audiovisuel français a évolué avec l'arrivée de nouveaux concurrents comme SFR ou Netflix, l'alliance du numéro un et du numéro deux dans les droits sportifs pose selon l'antitrust un véritable risque pour les consommateurs, ses concurrents et les vendeurs de droits comme les ligues de football et rugby.

Canal+ a fait le deuil de ses ambitions initiales

Depuis l'annonce de ce projet d'accord avec BeIN en février, Canal+ a d'abord fait son deuil de ses ambitions initiales que tout nouvel abonné à BeIN soit aussi obligé de s'abonner à CanalSat ou Canal+. Mais cela n'a pas suffi.

Le groupe présidé par Vincent Bolloré a ensuite proposé que l'on puisse toujours s'abonner en solo à BeIN mais que ce soit Canal qui maîtrise la relation avec le client pour pouvoir le convaincre de souscrire à d'autres offres. Le groupe s'est heurté là à l'opposition des fournisseurs d'accès comme SFR et Orange, qui souhaitent à la fois continuer de prélever une marge pour la distribution de BeIN, mais qui voulaient surtout pouvoir conserver des liens directs avec leurs clients en leur proposant des « packages » de contenus personnalisés. Canal a certes proposé, mais sans convaincre, d'informer les « telcos » des clients qu'il signait.

Installer des contre-pouvoirs face à Canal+

Pour l'Autorité de la concurrence, en fait, il n'est apparemment pas question de freiner l'essor des opérateurs télécoms dans les contenus en renforçant trop le poids de Canal+ dans l'univers de la télé payante. L'important reste visiblement pour l'instant de favoriser l'installation de contre-pouvoirs face à Canal dans les contenus premium afin que les Orange, SFR, Free ou Bouygues Telecom puissent faire jouer la concurrence.

Dès lors, l'Autorité de la concurrence aurait, selon nos informations, suggéré que Canal propose des prix de revente en gros à ses concurrents de ces contenus BeIN. Une pratique courante outre-Manche mais risquée pour BeIN qui fait face à de lourdes pertes et qui ne disposerait ainsi pas d'un minimum garanti bien supérieur à celui qu'il obtiendrait en accordant l'exclusivité à un seul acteur.

Pendant les quelques semaines de délibérations au sein de l'antitrust, Vincent Bolloré a brandi la menace de la fermeture de Canal en France, qui serait une catastrophe pour le financement de la création hexagonale, ou de sa sortie des contenus sportifs, qui fragiliserait les clubs. Reste à savoir s'il mettra ces menaces à exécution. En attendant, un accord avec BeIN mais sans exclusivité pourrait quand même être trouvé. Mais à un prix bien moindre.

Pas de menace mortelle pour Canal+

L'Autorité de la concurrence semble cependant estimer que la situation est moins noire pour Canal+ que ne le dit Vincent Bolloré . Avec CanalSat, le bouquet qui en est inséparable, les bénéfices sont toujours au rendez-vous. L'antitrust ne voit pas non plus l'émergence d'offres « low cost » dans le sport (Be IN) ou dans les séries et les films (Netflix) comme une menace mortelle pour Canal+ à court terme.

Même la montée en puissance de SFR dans l'achat de droits sportifs ne serait pas dans l'immédiat de nature à fragiliser outre mesure Canal. En outre, pourquoi détricoter les règles du marché maintenant, pense le gendarme de la concurrence. Les fameuses injonctions arrivent à échéance en juillet 2017. Il faudra d'ici là remettre à plat tout le paysage de la télé payante afin de déterminer s'il faut reconduire ces injonctions ou les adapter et ce travail va commencer bientôt...

En savoir plus sur http://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/medias/021998728876-bein-lautorite-de-la-concurrence-inflexible-face-a-canal-2003811.php?x2UM1W5d2tWWO48u.99

He could surely set off the worst trade war since the Great Depression, writes Lawrence Summers

On June 23, the UK will vote on whether to remain in the EU. On November 8, the US will vote on whether to elect Donald Trump as president. These elections have much in common. Both could lead to outcomes that would have seemed inconceivable not long ago. Both pit angry populists against the political establishment. And in both cases, polling suggests that the outcome is in doubt, with prediction markets suggesting a probability of between one in four and one in three of the radical outcome occurring.

It is interesting to contrast the way that financial markets are reacting to these uncertainties. The markets are highly sensitive to Brexit news: the pound and the British stock market move with every new opinion poll. Analysis of option pricing suggests that if Britain votes to leave the EU, sterling could easily fall by more than 10 per cent and the British stock market by almost as much. It is widely believed that the uncertainties associated with Brexit are consequential enough to affect the policies of the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks.

It would in all likelihood be economically very costly for Britain to leave the EU and would raise questions about the future cohesion of the UK. It would also threaten London’s role as a financial centre and curtail British exports to Europe.

What I find surprising is that US and global markets and financial policymakers seem much less sensitive to “Trump risk” than they are to “Brexit risk”. Options markets suggest only modestly elevated volatility in the period leading up to the presidential election. While every Fed watcher comments on the implications of Brexit for the central bank, few, if any, comment on the possible consequences of a victory for Mr Trump in November.

Yet, as great as the risks of Brexit are to the British economy, I believe the risks to the US and global economies of Mr Trump’s election as president are far greater. If he is elected, I would expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months. The damage would be felt far beyond the United States.

First, there is a substantial risk of highly erratic policy. Mr Trump has raised the possibility of more than $10tn in tax cuts, which would threaten US fiscal stability. He has also raised the possibility of the US restructuring its debt in the manner of a failed real estate developer. Perhaps this is just campaign rhetoric. But historical research suggests that presidents tend to carry out their major campaign promises.

The shadow boxing over raising the debt limit in 2011 (where all participants recognised the danger of default) was central to the stock market falling by 17 per cent.

Second, in a world economy defined by global integration, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism is highly dangerous. Exports have been a major driver of the American economy in recent years. What would happen to exports if the US were to build a wall along its southern border and abrogate all its trade treaties? Withdrawal from trade agreements does not currently require congressional approval. If Mr Trump did even half of what he has promised, he would surely set off the worst trade war since the Great Depression.

Third, prosperity depends on a secure geopolitical environment. Requiring Japan and Korea to defend themselves and scaling back Nato is a prescription for emboldening China and Russia and promoting nuclear proliferation. A perception that the US is at war with Islam rather than with radical elements within Islam is an invitation to terrorism. In such an environment, investment and trade are unlikely to flourish.

Fourth, Mr Trump’s authoritarian style and cult of personality surely would take a toll on business confidence. He has proposed to bring back torture as a tool of US foreign policy and to change the law so he can sue and punish publications he does not like. The country was paralysed by Watergate and to a lesser extent the Iran-Contra scandal, both of which involved extralegal activity by the president’s staff and the abuse of power. Who will rest secure with President Trump controlling the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency?

Finally, there is the question of uncertainty and confidence. Improving business confidence is the cheapest form of stimulus. Creating an environment where every tenet of the rule of law, internationalism and consistency in policy is up for grabs would be the best way to damage a still fragile US economy. In no election in my lifetime has a major party candidate for president been so dangerous for the economy.

Markets are discounting the possibility of a Trump presidency. Let us all pray they are right.

It is a difficult time to be proud of working in this sector, says Mary Childs

David Rubenstein, co-founder of Carlyle, the US asset manager, kicked off a lavish hedge fund conference in Las Vegas last month with a rallying cry: the industry has been under attack, and hedge fund managers must defend their occupation. “Be proud, not embarrassed,” he said.

That may be a tall order.

Lacklustre performance following the financial crisis has hurt the sector’s reputation, and the easy returns of the past seem to have disappeared. That has left some investors angry, feeling as if billionaire hedge fund managers have enriched themselves by taking high fees from pension fund clients while delivering mediocre returns.

That analysis is not necessarily fair, but it looks bad. Improving returns would certainly help win back support for an industry confused by its own unpopularity, but it should consider the face it presents to the world.

At the same conference, run by SkyBridge Capital, a company that invests in hedge funds, John Boehner, the former speaker of the US House of Representatives, put forward a solution: Wall Street and its cohorts simply needed a makeover.

“You look at what Wall Street does, what it means for job creation, economic growth . . . there’s a great story to tell. But if you don’t tell it, nobody else is.”

In fact, there are many great stories to tell about the hedge fund industry. It helps make capital markets more efficient and provides funding for educational initiatives, scientific and mathematical research, and philanthropic efforts such as the Robin Hood Foundation, an anti-poverty charity in New York. It is populated by professionals who generally work hard and are intelligent.

But the lone-wolf mentality of many hedge fund managers has inhibited the sector’s ability to self-police or guide how the public perceives it. Some suggest that the conference’s host, Anthony Scaramucci, the founder of SkyBridge, has taken Mr Boehner’s advice and is leading the charge to improve the industry’s image.

But in many respects, his conference has not helped.

T Boone Pickens, the billionaire hedge fund manager, said there that he agreed with Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, on the benefits of banning Muslims from entering the US. “I would cut off the Muslims coming into the US until we can vet these people,” he said.

Mr Scaramucci, who publicly supports Mr Trump and used the conference to fundraise for the property magnate’s campaign, says he objects to Mr Pickens’ comments. “But I hope people who have attended the conference at least more than once won’t hold me or my staff accountable for [those comments], because we’re trying to create an open forum.”

The event also provided a platform for Karl Rove, the Republican political consultant, to tell Donna Brazile, a black political strategist: “I did you a great favour bringing you into politics in the 1860 campaign and this is how you repay me? We’re happy you got the right to vote but it wasn’t your current party that was responsible for it.”

The 1860 presidential election of Republican Abraham Lincoln sparked the American civil war, eventually bringing about the abolition of slavery. Ms Brazile good-naturedly volleyed back that due to her gender she could not have voted until 1920. But his comment was patronising and insensitive.

Of course Mr Rove and Ms Brazile are from the world of politics, not hedge funds. But the room felt like a safe space to say such a thing. It is worth noting that there were no black speakers or moderators from the industry, and women accounted for less than 15 per cent of the speaking or moderating slots.

The problem of tone-deaf comments in the industry is not limited to one conference. Leon Cooperman, founder of Omega Advisors, made a misogynistic slur against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, at another gathering last month. “I have the greatest line for Trump, and he’s dumb enough to use it: ‘If you couldn’t satisfy your husband, how could you satisfy the country?’” he said, alluding to the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the Bill Clinton era.

The industry can do better. Not everyone shares these views, but these voices dominate when they are allowed the mic and the rest stay silent. As large investors increasingly reward fund companies that show a commitment to diversity, there is a financial incentive to avoid inflammatory and insensitive comments in public, or to endorse them. An industry comprised of risk takers is not doing enough to take some very easy stands. Pushing towards inclusion and against offensive statements might be an example of the rare trade that is low risk, high reward.

Businesses that rely on coal for at least a quarter of their revenues face being blacklisted by one of Europe’s largest pension funds amid fears that high-carbon investments could end up being worthless.

PKA, Denmark’s fourth-largest pension fund, with €35.5bn in assets, has asked 53 companies that generate between 25 and 50 per cent of their revenues from coal to provide plans on how they will reduce their exposure to the fossil fuel.

Pelle Pedersen, responsible investment analyst at PKA, said the pension fund will pull money from businesses that lack plans or provide inadequate proposals “for the shift to a low-carbon future”.

The move comes just months after a landmark agreement on climate change in Paris, where governments around the world committed to tackling global warming. This is expected to lead to regulation that hurts fossil fuel companies.

Senior officials such as Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, also warned that action to tackle global warming could turn fossil fuel companies into worthless stranded assets and trigger large writedowns or devaluations.

Mr Pedersen said: “We certainly believe there is a financial risk [when it comes to investing in coal companies], otherwise we wouldn’t have taken [these] steps. At the end of the day, we are here to provide the best possible returns for investors.”

PKA has already divested from 31 coal-only companies last year, including Whitehaven Coal in Australia, Indonesia’s Bumi Resources and the UK’s Peabody Energy, the coalminer that filed for bankruptcy protection in April.

The pension fund also recently divested from four other companies where coal accounted for more than half of their revenues, after the businesses failed to present a plan to reduce exposure to the fossil fuel.

However, PKA has remained invested in some businesses where coal is responsible for between 50 and 90 per cent of revenues, including Drax, the UK energy company, after they set out proposals to move away from fossil fuels.

“We want to support that transition [away from coal] rather than simply divesting from these types of companies,” said Mr Pedersen.

Other big investors are also moving to reduce their exposure to fossil fuel companies. Norway’s $860bn oil fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, said in April that it would no longer invest in 52 businesses that were too reliant on coal. Nordea Asset Management has also blacklisted coal companies.

The Asset Owners Disclosure Project, a non-profit organisation, recently found that almost half of the world’s largest investors are ignoring climate risks in their investment decisions.

Ben Caldecott, director of the sustainable finance programme at the University of Oxford, said: “The vast majority of asset owners do not take account of long-terms risks, such as climate change, despite having liabilities many decades into the future.”

This is despite warnings from Mr Carney last September that investors faced “potentially huge” losses from “stranded” coal, oil and gas assets. The Financial Stability Board, an international body monitoring the global financial system, has echoed his concerns.

Three of the largest coal companies in the US have already filed for bankruptcy, as tightening environmental regulation and competition from cheaper fuels hurt their business model.

The global alcohol industry is bracing for a potentially precedent-setting court decision in Scotland this summer on whether the government can set a floor on alcohol prices.

The semiautonomous Scottish government in 2012 passed legislation that sets a minimum price for all alcoholic beverages of 50 pence (about 72 cents) a unit, which is equal to 10 milliliters of pure alcohol. So-called minimum unit pricing, or MUP, is meant to curb heavy drinking by sharply boosting the price of the cheapest booze on the market.

A 20-pack of Foster’s 440-milliliter (15-ounce) beer cans, for instance, currently sells for £11 ($16) at Tesco PLC and J Sainsbury PLC stores in Scotland. The legislation would boost the price to at least £22.44.

While parts of Canada have some form of minimum unit pricing, if Scotland succeeds in court it will become the first full country to implement a floor price per unit of alcohol.

The alcohol industry says minimum unit pricing in Scotland would set an international precedent that could unleash a wave of regulation and crimp profits.

“If we lose it, I would expect that we will see MUP and similar health-justified schemes introduced not just in Scotland but eventually and gradually in many places around the world,” said David Frost, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, an industry trade group whose members include Diageo PLC and Pernod Ricard SA.

Wales—like Scotland a part of the U.K. but with the ability to write many of its own laws—last year began consulting on setting a floor price on alcohol. Ireland has a minimum-unit-pricing law making its way through the legislative process. Estonia is considering implementing a similar plan. Alcohol-industry executives worry that countries struggling to contain the social and fiscal costs of heavy drinking—like South Korea and Thailand—could justify harder measures if Scotland successfully waves through minimum unit pricing.

Scotland’s Parliament in May 2012 passed the law establishing a 50-pence floor on per-unit alcohol prices, with 86 members voting in favor of the measure. The single member who voted against the measure later said she did so by mistake.

The alcohol industry attacked the law as illegal and ineffective, saying it wouldn’t stem heavy drinking but instead force responsible drinkers to pay more. The Scotch Whisky Association in July 2012 filed a complaint with the European Commission, saying a pricing floor would “artificially distort trade in the alcoholic drinks market, contrary to EU law.” It also opposed the legislation in Scotland’s highest civil court, Edinburgh’s Court of Session, saying it breached the U.K.’s EU treaty obligations.

After years of the case bouncing between courts in Scotland and Europe, the Court of Session will hold a hearing on minimum unit pricing Tuesday and is expected to make a decision by August.

“We don’t believe in penalizing the majority of people who drink responsibly,” said a spokeswoman for Diageo, the world’s largest drinks maker and the biggest distiller of Scotch whisky. She added that the company believes in an approach focused on “the minority of irresponsible drinkers.”

Establishing a pricing floor “is a very crude implement,” said Pernod Ricard’s U.K. managing director, Denis O’Flynn. “We think personal responsibility and education is how you address the whole issue of responsible drinking.”

Industry moves successfully derailed minimum unit pricing in England, where British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged in March 2012 to introduce it.

“When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home before they even set foot in the pub,” Mr. Cameron said. He opened a consultation into the level at which a minimum price should be set, but said a floor of 40 pence a unit could mean 50,000 fewer crimes a year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths a year by the end of the decade.

The alcohol industry reacted swiftly. SABMiller PLC commissioned three reports from think tanks questioning the efficacy of minimum unit pricing and highlighting the importance of parents’ roles in whether children grow up to drink responsibly. The Wine and Spirits Trade Association led a campaign called “Why Should Responsible Drinkers Pay More” and arranged industry meetings with the Home Secretary Jeremy Browne. The trade body also ignored the official scope of the consultation and said minimum unit pricing was ineffective, unfair and likely illegal under EU law, according to a person familiar with the moves.

Mr. Browne in July 2013 announced the government was shelving plans for minimum unit pricing, citing insufficient evidence that it works.

Several alcohol executives credit the Scotch Whiskey Association’s European Commission complaint that summer with helping to put England’s policy on ice.

If Scotland implements minimum unit pricing, it could reignite calls for the measure to be passed in England. “We all recognize it could come back,” said a London-based senior alcohol executive.

“Minimum unit pricing remains under review pending the outcome of the legal case between the Scottish Government and the Scotch Whiskey Association and any implementation in Scotland,” said a spokeswoman for the U.K. Home Office.

Variants of pricing based on alcohol strength have been effective where they have been implemented, health researchers say.

The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has five price bands per beverage based on alcohol strength. A 10% increase in the minimum price of alcoholic beverages in Saskatchewan was associated with an 8.43% reduction in total alcohol consumption, according to a 2012 analysis by Tim Stockwell, director of the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia.

Alcohol is a particularly hot-button issue in Scotland, where sales were 20% higher than in England and Wales last year, according to data released last week by Scotland’s National Health Service. Drinking kills six Scots a day, and Scottish drinkers are twice as likely to die of alcohol-related health problems as those in the rest of the U.K., according to data from the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, a government-funded group.

“I’m not a teetotaler, but I’m concerned that cheap alcohol is ruining and costing the lives of many of my fellow countrymen,” said Alex Salmond, who led the Scottish National Party when it pushed through minimum unit pricing in 2012.