Cartel Enforcement Archives - Page 11 of 24

Best Buy Wins and Loses LCD Price Fixing Trial

by Emily Townsend | Sep 9, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement

On September 3, 2013, a California federal jury unanimously found HannStar Display Corp. liable for conspiring to fix prices on liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. However, the jury found co-defendant Toshiba Corporation not liable. The jury awarded plaintiff Best Buy Company $7.47 million in direct damages. The case is In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (3:07-md-01827) located in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Best Buy accused Toshiba and HannStar of conspiring with other firms to fix prices for LCD panels. Prior to and during trial, HannStar admitted participating in meetings where major electronics makers agreed to fix panel prices. The lawsuit stemmed from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice which resulted in guilty plea agreements for HannStar and other Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean firms, not including Toshiba.

Plaintiff’s experts argued that the defendants owed Best Buy up to $770 million. Defense experts calculated damages significantly lower and the jury agreed with those estimates. However, even though the jury awarded damages, Best Buy may not be able to collect based on the jury’s decision that HannStar’s conduct did not have a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on trade or commerce in the United States as required by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act.

On Heels of European Raids, Energy Companies Face U.S. Class Actions

by Emily Townsend | Jul 9, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, Energy/Commodities

by Megan Morley

White Oaks Fund LP, an Illinois private placement fund, filed a class action suit last week against BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Statoil ASA in the Southern District of New York. White Oaks Fund v. BP PLC, et al., case number 1:13-cv-04553. The complaint alleges that the energy companies colluded to distort the price of crude oil by supplying false pricing information to Platts, a publisher of benchmark prices in the energy industry, in violation of the Sherman and Commodity Exchange Acts. Plaintiffs claim that defendant companies are sophisticated market participants who knew that the incorrect information they provided to Platts would impact crude oil futures and derivative contracts prices traded in the U.S.

This action follows at least six civil litigations that have been filed against BP, Shell and Statoil after the European Commission (EC) and Norwegian Competition Authority raided the companies in May. The London offices of Platts were also searched. After the surprise raids, the EC has stated that it is investigating concerns that the companies conspired to manipulate benchmark rates for various oil and biofuel products and that the companies excluded other energy firms from the benchmarking process as part of the scheme. In addition, at least one U.S. Senator has requested that the U.S. Department of Justice look into whether any of the alleged illegal behavior occurred in the U.S.

The private actions filed against these energy companies in the U.S. on the heels of an investigation by the European Commission are not uncommon. Any company that transacts business in the U.S. and undergoes a raid or investigation by a foreign competition authority should prepare to face these civil litigations and defend itself against similar allegations.

New German Cartel Fine Guidelines

by Jackie Sinn | Jun 27, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, German Developments

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and Robert Bäuerle

The German Federal Cartel Office has just published new Guidelines on the Setting of Fines for antitrust law infringements. With these guidelines, the German Federal Cartel Office departs from the method of setting fines used by the European Commission and other national competition authorities in Europe. As a result of the new guidelines, the potential liability for multi-product firms whose infringement concerned only a specific product in their portfolio and whose other products achieve significant turnover may increase.

Read the full article here.

Obtaining Legal Advice is Not a Shield Against Fines for Infringement of EU Competition Rules

by Emily Townsend | Jun 26, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments

by Philipp Werner and Aiste Slezeviciute

On 18 June 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that a company that infringed EU competition rules will not escape a fine even if it can claim that it relied on advice given by a legal adviser on the compatibility of its behaviour with national competition rules (Case C-681/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. and Others). In the same ruling, the CJEU also held that relying on the correctness of a decision taken by a national competition authority (NCA) does not protect a company from being found guilty of an infringement of competition law and fined.

To read the full article, click here.

EU’s Top Court Rules That Blanket Ban on Access to Leniency Documents is not Permitted

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 12, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement

by Philipp Werner and David Henry

The European Union’s top court rules that a national law which requires the consent of all parties before access to the file is given to third-party antitrust damages claimants is incompatible with EU law; a national court must be able to decide on disclosure weighing up the interests in doing so.

To read the full article, click here.

EU’s Top Court Rules That Blanket Ban on Access to Leniency Documents is not Permitted

by Emily Townsend | Jun 12, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement

by Philipp Werner and David Henry

The European Union’s top court rules that a national law which requires the consent of all parties before access to the file is given to third-party antitrust damages claimants is incompatible with EU law; a national court must be able to decide on disclosure weighing up the interests in doing so.

To read the full article, click here.

EU Commission Published Proposals for Private Antitrust Litigation

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 12, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, Private Litigation

by Lionel Lesur, Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

On 11 June, the European Commission (“Commission”) published its long-awaited package of proposals on private antitrust litigation. The package is divided into three sets: (1) a Draft Directive on actions for damages (2) a Draft Recommendation on promoting group claims (3) and a Draft Communication and Draft Guidelines on estimating the amount of loss suffered by victims of cartels.

To read the full article, click here.

A Dutch Court Hands Down the First Substantive Damages Judgment in the Netherlands for an Infringement of Competition Law

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 27, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, German Developments

by David Henry and Wilko van Weert

In a recent judgment, a District Court in the Netherlands (the DCA) handed down a judgment in what is the first substantive damages judgment in the Netherlands for a breach of competition law. In issuing the declaration of liability, the DCA held that ABB must pay damages to the Dutch grid operator TenneT for the overcharge that arose as a result of the gas insulated switchgear cartel, putting aside arguments by ABB that any damages should take into account the fact that the overcharge had been passed on to customers of TenneT. The court considered that in this case the indirect purchasers were likely to benefit from compensation to the direct customer.

To read the full article, click here.

Joint and Several Liability For Antitrust Fines: Parent Company Can Benefit From a Reduction in Its Subsidiary’s Fine

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 11, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments

by Philip Bentley and Philipp Werner

A judgment of the EU General Court in March 2011, upheld on appeal by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on January 22, 2013, is potentially good news for parent companies. Where both a parent company and its subsidiary bring separate court challenges against a cartel fine for which they were held jointly and severally liable, the parent company should benefit from any reduction in fine that the court grants to the subsidiary, provided that the challenges brought by the two companies have the “same object”.

In light of these judgments, it would appear that a parent company’s argument should be similar to that adopted by its subsidiary when challenging a fine imposed jointly and severally on both of them. At the same time, the parent company may wish to contest the fact that it was held jointly and severally liable for the subsidiary’s infringement. This would require the parent to demonstrate that it did not exercise a “decisive influence” over the subsidiary’s commercial policy. Reconciling this latter argument with a challenge to the subsidiary’s fine is, however, likely to require skilful drafting of the parent company’s pleadings.

To read the full article, click here.

European Commission to Settle Half its Ongoing Cartel Investigations in 2013

by Emily Townsend | Jan 30, 2013 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments

by Philip Bentley, QC and Philipp Werner

Joaquín Almunia, the European Union’s Commissioner for Competition, has announced that the European Commission hopes to settle around half of its outstanding cartel cases in 2013. It’s time to review the European Union’s settlement procedure.

To read the full article, click here.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS