In a much-anticipated series of judgments, running to some 579 pages, the EU’s General Court on 8 September 2016 upheld a 2013 decision of the European Commission that imposed fines of almost €150 million on the innovative pharmaceutical manufacturer, Lundbeck, and a number of generic manufacturers with whom Lundbeck had entered into agreements to settle…

Co-authored by Patrick Harrison and Audrey Silvain, Sidley Austin LLP.   There are few distinctions more important in EU competition law than that between the notion of a restriction “by object” – where a regulator need not demonstrate that conduct had anti-competitive effects – and the notion of a restriction “by effect,” where a regulator…

Co-authored by Patrick Harrison and Lara Kaplan, Sidley Austin LLP. The European Commission (“Commission”) introduced its settlement procedure for cartel cases back in 2008.1)Commission Regulation (EC) No 662/2008 of 30 June 2008 amending Regulation No 773/2004, as regards the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases (OJ 2008 L171) (“the Settlements Notice”).  The main aims? …

In early July this year, the UK’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”), adopted a judgment (“Judgment”) in which it awarded a claimant (2 Travel) exemplary damages in relation to predatory pricing abuses engaged in by its dominant rival, Cardiff Bus.1)2 Travel Group PLC (in liquidation) v Cardiff City Transport Services Limited {2012}…

Competition authorities are forever looking to be more efficient.  With limited resources and an almost unlimited supply of complaints and applications for immunity, the premium attached to efficiency in antitrust enforcement has never been greater.  From the publication of decisions to the issuance of guidelines, and from the promotion of private enforcement to the giving…