Review of EU Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation

 Review of EU Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation

The Commission has published its findings on its Motor Vehicle Block Exemption consultation.

Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager has commented on the importance of data in the context of this review: “Our evaluation has shown that the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation has made it easier for businesses in the automotive sector to assess whether their agreements are in line with the EU rules on competition. At the same time, it showed that we need to take into account the emergence of new technologies and the increasing role of data in competitive dynamics in this industry. The Commission will therefore reflect on how to address these issues to ensure that the rules remain fit for a rapidly changing automotive industry.”

The Commission will now start the policy-making stage of the review, in order to decide by 31 May 2023 whether to renew the current Motor Vehicle Block Exemption regime, revise it or let it lapse.

For full details see here:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2673

#motorvehicles

European Commission re-adopts ICAP cartel fine in Yen Interest Rate Derivatives market

 

European Commission re-adopts ICAP cartel fine in Yen Interest Rate Derivatives market

 

The European Commission has re-adopted a cartel decision against ICAP plc (now NEX International) imposing EUR6.45 million fines for facilitating five cartels in the Yen Interest Rate Derivatives trading market.

The original Commission decision was made in 2015 but in November 2017 the General Court annulled one of the six of the infringements and reduced the duration of four.  In July 2019 the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission’s appeal.  As ICAP did not appeal, its liability for the five remaining infringements was made final.

The Commission says that its re-adopted decision cures the procedural defects found by the General Court.  It maintains that re-adopting the decision in this way is necessary for deterrence and enforcement.  The ability of the Commission to re-adopt decisions which are challenged on appeal is somewhat unusual.  It has been questioned how this approach is compatible with limitation rules.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_21_2744

European Commission fines banks in bond trading cartel

 

European Commission fines banks in bond trading cartel

The European Commission has found that Bank of America, Natixis, Nomura, RBS (now NatWest), UBS, UniCredit and WestLB (now Portigon) have breached Article 101(1) TFEU through their participation in a cartel in the markets for European Government Bonds.  The case follows a similar pattern of conduct to that seen in the Commission’s forex cartel investigation.

The Commission found that the banks’ traders regularly communicated with each other in chatrooms on Bloomberg terminals where they exchanged price sensitive information and shared details of their bidding strategies.  The cartel dates back to the financial crisis (between 2007 and 2011). 

The Commission imposed total penalties of EUR371 million on Nomura, UBS and UniCredit.  NatWest as the immunity applicant escaped fines.  Portgigon incurred a zero penalty as the economic successor to WestLB as it had no relevant net turnover in the period used to calculate the fine.  Bank of America and Natixix escaped fines as their involvement was outside the limitation period.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2565

Competition Appeal Tribunal upholds GSK ‘pay for delay’ decision but reduces penalties

 

Competition Appeal Tribunal upholds GSK ‘pay for delay’ decision but reduces penalties

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has upheld a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) finding that GlaxoSmithKline and three generic pharmaceutical manufacturers infringed competition law by entering into so-called ‘pay for delay’ agreements for the drug paroxetine.  It reduced the penalties originally imposed by the CMA by £27 million.

The agreements dated back to the early 2000s.  While the CAT upheld the substantive findings of infringement, the reduction in penalties reflects the legal uncertainty at the time of the arrangements and the novelty of the infringement.  The CAT also criticised the very substantial passage of time between the end of the violation in 2004 and the start of the CMA’s investigation.

The CAT’s decision was delayed following its referral of a number of questions to the Court of Justice.

The 77 page judgment merits a close reading.  It clarifies issues relating to market definition, competition between originators and generics and what may be considered a ‘by object’ infringement.

[2021] CAT 9, https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1251-1255_Paroxetine_Judgment_CAT9_100521.pdf

Competition Damages Claim against FAPL for blocking takeover of Newcastle United

 Competition Damages Claim against FAPL for blocking takeover of Newcastle United

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has published a claim for damages and/or an injunction by Newcastle United Football Company Limited (NUFC) owner St James Holdings Limited against The Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL).

The claim alleges that FAPL has infringed Article 101/Chapter I and/or Article 102/Chapter II by blocking a proposed takeover of NUFC by PZ Newco Limited.

Quite apart from the abuse of dominance allegation, the claimant alleges that the FAPL’s exercise of its powers under its rules is liable to exclude new owners and new management of, and new investment in, member-clubs and has the potential to restrict competition between clubs.

It claims that FAPL did not properly exercise its rules requiring owners of clubs to be "fit and proper persons" in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory manner and that the FAPL used its powers under its rules for an improper (i.e., commercial) purpose.

The claimant is seeking damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity, and an injunction requiring the FAPL to withdraw and reconsider its decision.

https://lnkd.in/grs5Aw7

#football competition

European Commission sanctions provision of misleading information in EU Merger Regulation investigation

 

European Commission sanctions provision of misleading information in EU Merger Regulation investigation

The European Commission has fined Sigma-Aldrich EUR7.5 million for providing incorrect or misleading information during the Commission's investigation of Merck's acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich.

Sigma-Aldrich failed to disclose to the Commission an innovation project linked to the divested business.  The Commission found indications that this was intended to avoid the transfer of the relevant project to the purchaser of the divestment business.

The Commission has imposed fines on merging companies for provision of misleading information on two occasions, both in the last five years.  In 2017 it fined Facebook EUR110 million in relation to its acquisition of WhatsApp.  In 2019 it fined GE EUR52 million in relation to its acquisition of LM Wind.

These cases are a reminder of the importance of provision of accurate and complete information in merger investigations and where the consequences of getting it wrong are costly.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2181