JULY 2013
Legal Expert Board
The draft Bill widens the jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”). It provides for stand-alone actions for damages for an alleged infringement i.e. where no decision has been made by a relevant competition authority, it allows for the CAT to grant injunctions on par with the High Court and also gives parties leave to appeal on a point of law against a decision of the CAT to award damages or to grant an injunction in proceedings brought under s47A or s47B of the Competition Act 1998.
The new Bill has also aligned the limitation periods between the CAT and the higher courts of the United Kingdom (the High Court in England and Wales, the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in Northern Ireland), makes provision for the fast-tracking of certain claims and establishes the binding nature of final OFT/CMA decisions upon the CAT.
The other main addition that this Bill proposes is in relation to collective proceedings. It introduces a new opt-out regime for collective actions alongside the existing opt-in regime but prohibits the CAT from making an award of exemplary damages in both types of collective action.
The disclosure of leniency documentation is also currently a hot topic in the anti-trust community. Following the Pfleiderer decision by the ECJ in June 2011 and the National Grid case in the English Courts, the most recent development was the ECJ’s judgment in Donau Chemie released on 6 June this year. Here the ECJ held that EU countries can’t adopt laws that impose a blanket ban on the disclosure of cartel evidence (including whistleblower submissions) to victims of price fixing.
What has muddied the water slightly is the Commission’s recent release of a draft Directive on actions for damages (11
June 2013). In relation to disclosure the directive proposes to:
A. impose an absolute prohibition on national courts from ordering a party or third party in any action for damages to disclose (i) leniency corporate statements and (ii) settlement submissions; and
B. place a temporary prohibition on the disclosure of (i) documents that parties have specifically prepared for the purpose of public enforcement proceedings and (ii) those documents that the NCA has drawn up in relation to its proceedings; both types only being accessible after the NCA has closed its proceedings.
The draft directive also makes it clear that if a party to damages actions had been able to obtain access to those documents types in A, they would not be admissible as evidence in an action for damages and the second class of document would only be admissible after the NCA had closed its proceedings.
The Commission’s proposals on a damages claimant’s access to leniency documents have codified what was being played out in the courts of European nations. The proposals are a double edged sword in that whilst they allow disclosure they keep out – from the claimant’s perspective – the all important leniency material.
How does antitrust compliancy affect local and foreign businesses?
Let me answer this from the reverse perspective. Anticompetitive behavior sees companies entering into agreements to fix prices, share markets and customers and rig bids. The effects of this can be to artificially inflate the price of products, create high barriers to prevent the entry of potential new competitors and to inhibit innovation.
Contact: Jenna Corden
(PA to Anthony Maton and office Manager) Email:
jcorden@hausfeldllp.com tel: 0207 665 5000
Website:
www.hausfeldllp.co.uk
Cartel activity essentially enables less efficient companies to maintain a status quo on their particular market.
Compliance on the other hand would mean that competitors engage in business on a level playing field. For foreign companies this means that they have the opportunity to develop their business in new markets and for both local and foreign business it enables risks to be taken on new products and new ideas.
Compliance does come at a cost to both local and foreign business especially in relation to merger control. Before a management decision is taken in relation to a potential merger, experts such as solicitors and economists may have to be engaged to evaluate the compatibility of the merger with competition laws. Ryan Air provides a long running example which evidences compliance coming at quite a hefty price.
Ryan Air first notified the Commission in October 2006 of its wish to merge with Aer Lingus, the proposal was rejected. Ryan Air then appealed this decision but it was thrown out by the General Court. In 2009 Ryan Air again notified the Commission of the same merger but later withdrew this and for a third time last July Ryan Air tried again, but seven months after notifying the Commission the proposed merger was unanimously prohibited. LM
33
www.lawyer-monthly.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132