Menu
Browse Options
Advocate general deals another blow to economic assessment of rebates

It is never a good sign when an advocate general’s opinion warns the European Court of Justice (ECJ) not to be swayed by “ephemeral trends” or the “Zeitgeist” of economic analysis, but instead to stick to the “legal foundations on which the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position rests in EU law”.

Advocate General Kokott’s opinion in Post Danmark offers old-school analysis of Post Danmark’s rebates.1

Background

The relevant market was the bulk mail market, in which Post Danmark had a monopoly share. Its standardised volume rebate scheme applied to all customers, with a series of tiers starting at 30,000 letters. The scheme offered increasing rebates starting at 6% (for 30,000 letters) an [...]

EU judgment confirms potential of high cartel fines for vertically integrated multinational companies

On 9 July 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued an important judgment1 concerning the basis on which cartel fines by the European Commission should be calculated for vertically integrated companies.

The judgment endorses the power of the European Commission to impose large fines on multinational companies operating at various levels of the manufacturing and supply chain. It confirms that, for the purposes of cartel fine calculation, the Commission may take into account non-EEA sales of cartelized inputs if these inputs have been built into finished products and subsequently sold to a third party in the EEA by a vertically integrated company.

The judgment stands as a [...]

Competition Commission of India Initiates Investigation in relation to Resale Price Maintenance –impact on business operations

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently launched investigations in relation to RPM in two sectors: the e-commerce sector (Jasper Infotech Private Limited and Kaff Appliances, Case No 61 of 2014) and the automobile sector (F/X Enterprise and Hyundai, Case No 36 of 2014). This is the first time where CCI will consider the competitive concerns emanating from RPM. A small factual snapshot, with respect to the issue of RPM, of each of the cases is as below:-

- Jasper and KAFF: Jasper owns and operates an online market place under the name of snapdeal.com. It was alleged that KAFF, a player in the kitchen appliance market, was imposing RPM and adduced an email exchange sent by an o [...]

Pre-merger Notification in Canada: An Overview

Mark Katz and Jim Dinning, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Toronto, Canada

This Note provides an overview of the notification requirements that apply to certain mergers, acquisitions and other business combinations under Part IX of the Competition Act. It first considers the type of transactions that require notification and the thresholds that apply. It then summarizes the procedural processes connected with filing a pre-merger notification with the Commissioner of Competition and the Competition Bureau.

INTRODUCTION

The Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (Act) requires that mergers, acquisitions and other business combinations that meet certain prescribed thresholds be notified t [...]

GCLC_Banner

76th Lunch Talk of the Global Competition Law Center

Monday, June 29, 2015 from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM

Seven Years of Settlement Decisions: an appraisal after the TIMAB judgment

Flavio LAINA, DG COMP, European Commission
Stephen SPINKS, Sidley Austin LLP

Moderator: Denis Waelbroeck, GCLC & Ashurst LLP

Programme:
12:00 – 12:30: Sandwich lunch and socializing
12:30 – 13:30: Presentations and comments
13:45 – 14:00: Q&A

Location: The Hotel
38 Boulevard de Waterloo
1000 Brussels
Belgium

For attending this event, please register HERE.

The TIMAB judgment of the EU General Court is available HERE.

[...]
Corrs in Brief: Where to now for agreed penalty outcomes with the ACCC in Australia?

The Full Court of the Federal Court has just handed down a very important decision in the Fair Work Inspectorate v CFMEU.

The decision has very wide ramification across all industries.  The Court held that in civil prosecutions, the regulator and respondent are not permitted to make joint submissions to the Court about the appropriate level of penalties that the Court may order.  The Court held that this is only the remit of the judge.  The decision follows a decision by the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen where the High Court came to the same view in the context of criminal cases.

The Court’s decision overturns more than twenty years of precedent and practice where regulators and res [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...