ANTITRUST ALERT
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
Cartel Enforcement
Subscribe to Cartel Enforcement's Posts

Bag Fee Case Highlights Antitrust Risk Of Public Statements

by and | Apr 12, 2017 | , , ,

For publicly traded companies, earnings calls are routine business events, as are press releases, speeches, investor conferences and trade association meetings. However, in the world of antitrust law, words uttered in these situations can provide fodder for plaintiffs to claim that instead of providing information for investors and the public, the communication’s purpose was to invite competitors to unlawfully collude. In the past several years, allegations that competitors used public statements to carry out a price-fixing agreement have been a common thread in antitrust class actions and multidistrict litigations.

Recently, a federal district court granted summary judgment in an antitrust case based on earnings calls in the airline industry. While the defendants ultimately prevailed, the case stands as a reminder to publicly traded companies to be mindful of antitrust considerations in earnings calls and other public communications.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Law360.com, April 11, 2017.



read more

THE LATEST: Acting AAG Clarifies Scope of Amnesty for Executives

by | Apr 5, 2017 | ,

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (the Division) offers leniency to the first company to contact the Division and acknowledge participation in an antitrust conspiracy such as price-fixing, bid-rigging or market allocation. The Division’s leniency program requires the applicant to fully cooperate with the government’s investigation and to candidly acknowledge its wrongdoing, among other requirements. In return, the successful applicant receives a pass from corporate criminal exposure and also receives immunity for its officers, directors and executives.

The leniency program is the crown jewel of the Division’s enforcement regime because of its demonstrated success generating new cases. The program’s ability to attract applicants is based on its transparency and predictability. The level of trust required for companies to air their criminal wrongdoing to prosecuting authorities is not automatic. It has been earned over the years by a program that keeps its promises and works as designed. Therefore, changes to the program are closely watched by the defense bar for any perceived lessening of immunity coverage. (more…)



read more

European Commission Launches New Cartel Reporting Tool, Member States Laud the Role of Whistleblowers

by | Apr 4, 2017 | , ,

European Commissioner of Competition Margrethe Vestager made news when she announced that the European Commission had launched a new IT system enabling individuals to anonymously report cartel activity. In parallel, several EU Member States have–in recent weeks–highlighted the role of individual informants in their own enforcement efforts. Taken together, these developments show that the stakes of effective and meaningful antitrust compliance continue to rise, as individuals have more avenues to report anticompetitive conduct.

Speaking in Berlin on March 16, 2017, Commissioner Vestager stated, “We’ve discovered a lot of cartels thanks to leniency programs […] But we don’t just rely on leniency. We pay attention to other methods as well. And that includes encouraging individuals to come forward, when their conscience is troubled by the information that they have about a cartel. That’s why we recently launched a new IT system to help people tell us anonymously about cartels. The system means that we can communicate both ways with them without risking their anonymity while we gather information.”

Commissioner Vestager noted that the European Commission’s new system is modelled on a system implemented by the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) in 2012. Notably, the FCO itself published a brochure in late February 2017 titled “Effective Cartel Enforcement” highlighting, among other things, the success of its whistleblowing program. The FCO noted that its system is accessible from its website and “guarantees the anonymity of informers while still allowing for continual reciprocal communication with the investigative staff [at the FCO] via a secure electronic mailbox.” Between June 2012 and December 2016, the FCO reports receiving 1,420 tips, “some of which” have led to proceedings resulting in fines.

(more…)



read more

THE LATEST: Antitrust Umps Throw Out Information Exchanges Relating To LA Dodgers Broadcast Rights

by | Apr 3, 2017 | ,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reinforces the perils of competitor information exchanges by challenging alleged communications between DirecTV and other video programmers related to broadcast rights for Los Angeles (LA) Dodgers baseball.

WHAT HAPPENED:
  • In November 2016, the DOJ filed an antitrust complaint against DirecTV. DOJ alleged:
    • The LA Dodgers sought to sell broadcast rights to their baseball games to cable and satellite TV companies.
    • DirecTV was a potential bidder for Dodgers’ rights, as were other cable companies operating in the LA area.
    • DirectTV entered into agreements with competing cable companies to exchange information relating to their negotiations with the LA Dodgers.
    • As a result of the information learned through these information exchanges, the various potential bidders did not compete aggressively for Dodgers broadcast rights because they gained information about their rivals’ negotiating positions.
    • The negotiations dragged on, and since no programmer had broadcast rights, people in LA could not watch Dodgers games on television.
    • Notably, DOJ did not allege that the broadcasters reached any price fixing or market allocation agreement.
  • In late March, DirecTV settled with the DOJ and entered into a consent order that precludes it from providing non-public, competitively sensitive information to a competitor or seeking such information from competitors.
    • There are exceptions to allow exchanges in connection with legitimate due diligence, collaborative ventures or commercial vendor/vendee arrangements.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
  • While not surprising, this case reinforces that information exchanges between competitors creates substantial antitrust risk.
  • Exchanges can create antitrust exposure even if there is no agreement between the competitors on pricing or other competitive decisions, and compliance programs should reinforce this principle.
  • Agreements or coordination among buyers raise the same types of competitive issues as agreements among sellers.
    • In this case, the Dodgers were the sellers and DirecTV and programmers were the buyers.
    • Another recent example is the FTC/DOJ guidance issued last fall on anticompetitive agreements among employers, such as “no poach” or “no solicit” agreements, which DOJ stated it may prosecute criminally if they are “naked” agreements, unrelated to a legitimate activity such as a joint venture.
  • The antitrust laws protect the competitive process rather than low prices.
    • A competitive market for the sale of products often leads to lower priced goods and services.
    • In this case, DOJ alleged that DirecTV and the other providers exchanged information to prevent the Dodgers from raising the price for Dodgers’ broadcasts, but that did not legitimize the conduct.


read more

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Confirms the Commission’s Approach to Hybrid Settlements

by | Mar 10, 2017 | ,

The case follows on from the Commission’s Animal Feed Phosphates cartel decision pursuant to which fines totalling €176 million were imposed on a number of producers of animal feed for price fixing and market sharing throughout the EEA.

During the investigation into the infringement, all the companies involved engaged in settlement discussions with the Commission with a view to obtaining a 10 percent reduction in the fine that would otherwise have been imposed had they not settled with the Commission. However, during the settlement process Timab, a subsidiary of the Roullier Group, decided to withdraw from the settlement procedure. The Commission therefore followed the standard administrative infringement procedure against Timab – despite the fact that it had entered into settlements with the other companies involved in the cartel. This was the first time, therefore, that the Commission rendered a decision in a so-called ‘hybrid’ case i.e. where some parties settle but others do not.

During the initial settlement discussions, several meetings were held between the Commission and Timab, during which evidence of the infringement was discussed. On the basis of the evidence available, the Commission informed Timab that a fine in the range of €41 to €44 million would be imposed on it. However, in its final decision of 20 July 2010, the Commission levied a fine of nearly €60 million on Timab.

Timab challenged the Commission’s decision before the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) in case T-456/10, claiming that the Commission had infringed its legitimate expectations regarding the amount of the fine, on the one hand, and its right not to incriminate itself, on the other. Such challenge was unsuccessful, however.

(more…)



read more

McDermott EU Competition Annual Review 2016

by | Feb 2, 2017 | , , , , , ,

It is difficult for General Counsel and their teams to monitor all new developments adequately. With the growth of the Internet and the daily updates to EU competition rules, everyone receives and has access to masses of information, but it is difficult to select that which is really relevant to one’s business.

McDermott’s EU Competition team across Brussels, France, Germany and Italy has authored the EU Competition Annual Review 2016 to help General Counsel and their teams to focus on the essential updates that they should be aware of.

This Special Report summarizes recent developments in EU competition rules during the year 2016 where several new regulations, notices and guidelines were issued by the European Commission and many interesting cases were decided by the General Court and the EU Court of Justice.

All these new rules and judicial decisions can be relevant for international companies operating in the EU. Indeed, in addition to the daily update, this booklet provides an overview of the main recent developments in EU competition rules and can be kept as a ready reference when dealing with complex issues of EU competition law.

Read the full report.



read more

Changes to Polish Antimonopoly Law in a Nutshell

by | Jan 19, 2017 | , , ,

The Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, “UOKiK”) has recently published its 2015 annual report presenting its first experiences with the recent amendments to Polish merger control regulations. However, only future developments will show the effects of the new much more severe rules on cartel infringement proceedings and sanctions for cartel behaviour.

On 18 January 2015 far-reaching changes to the Polish Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (Ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów), alternatively named “Antimonopoly Law” (prawo antymonopolowe), came into effect. These have been made to close previously identified gaps and strengthen competition and consumer protection. In addition to important changes with respect to merger control and anticompetitive practices, the Antimonopoly Law as amended has introduced changes that allow for more open dialogue between undertakings and the UOKiK.

Faster and more flexible merger control proceedings

According to UOKiK’s 2015 annual report the average duration of merger control proceedings could be reduced by half despite the fact that the overall number of merger control proceedings increased. The average duration dropped from 57 days in 2014 to 34 days in 2015. Of all merger control proceedings that UOKiK completed in 2015 only three (of 235) were Phase 2 proceedings. This can be explained by the following amendments introduced in early 2015:

  • A new two-stage merger control process: Phase 1 (1 month) and Phase 2 (4 months). The waiting period may be extended by UOKiK in the event that UOKiK requires additional information and documents from the parties;
  • New approach in case of competition concerns: UOKiK informs undertakings about its competition concerns so that they may alter the proposed concentration to alleviate UOKiK’s concerns, e.g. through adequate remedies;
  • Approach towards remedies: Undertakings may request UOKiK that it refrains from publishing in its decisions the deadline by which divestments must be made;
  • De minimis clause extended: mergers and the creation of joint ventures explicitly (just like acquisitions of control already under the old law) do not need to be notified to the UOKiK if the turnover in Poland of each of the parties to the transaction does not exceed the equivalent of EUR 10 million in each of the two financial years preceding the transaction. The de minimis clause also applies to concentrations whereby control and assets are being acquired simultaneously.

Effective fight against cartels

New rules for more effective fights against cartels have been introduced but could not yet show any significant effect in 2015. The number of started proceedings (from 87 in 2013 down to 34 in 2015) and of leniency applications (from 10 in 2014 down to 2 in 2015) has dropped. UOKIK explains the reduction in numbers with the application of its new “soft approach” that contains inter alia best practices and the authority’s possibility to request undertakings to voluntarily terminate an infringement and to apply its best practices.

Nonetheless, one should keep in mind the following amendments to the law:

  • New provisions concerning fines on individuals: individuals can now [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Ad hoc Local Leniency Application Makes the Difference: The Italian Council of State Upholds the Administrative Court of Lazio Judgment on the Alleged International Road Freight Cartel

by | Oct 26, 2016 | , ,

On 20 October 2016, the Italian Council of State (the “Council of State”) upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court of Lazio (“TAR”) on the cartel in the sector of international road freight forwarding to and from Italy and confirmed the ranking applied in granting the reduction of the fine. According to the Council of State, in order to access the national leniency program, a company should provide the Authority with all necessary information and elements for the uncovering of the infringement, and should take into account that all the relevant information and elements provided to other authorities, in the context of other leniency application, will not be considered by the Authority. Therefore, companies should be careful and verify that each leniency application submitted is prepared ad hoc for each jurisdiction and is not capable of raising doubts regarding its scope. (more…)



read more

DOJ, FTC Issue Antitrust Guidance to Human Resources Professionals

by , and | Oct 25, 2016 | , , ,

On October 20, 2016, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued joint Antitrust Guidance to Human Resource (HR) Professionals (the Guidance) involved in hiring and compensation decisions. The agencies issued the guidance to educate HR professionals about how the antitrust laws apply in the employment context. 

Read the full article here.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022