The First Circuit has rejected an antitrust claim alleging that the Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission improperly monopolized the sale of jet fuel at the airport. The court held that the Commission’s conducted was exempted from antitrust scrutiny by the state action doctrine.
Private Challenge to Nestle Acquisition Dismissed
July 26, 2010 – 3:36 pm
Judge Savador Casellas, District of Puerto Rico, dismissed a challenge to Nestle’s acquisition of an ice cream distributor in Puerto Rico on the ground that because ice cream sales increased while prices remanded stable the plaintiff could not demonstrate antitrust injury.
ATM Fee Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
July 26, 2010 – 3:33 pm
Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer denied a motion to dismiss in In re: ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have illegally conspired to set ATM interchange fees at supra-competitive levels and then passing the fees on to consumers as foreign ATM fees. The defendant banks sought to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Star ATM network in which they all participate did not have a dominant position in the ATM market. The plaintiffs alleged two theories of liability. First, it argued that the Star network formed a relevant market unto itself because consumers were locked into their banks choice of network. The court rejected this argument on the ground that ATM networks compete for the bank’s business, not for consumers. The court denied the motion to dismiss, however, based on a second theory that the banks demonstrated ability to keep interchange fees at supra-competitive levels indicates that Star in fact has market power.
EC Imposes Fines in Animal Feed Cartel Case
July 26, 2010 – 2:33 pm
The EC fined animal feed phosphates producers for operating a three-decade cartel covering much of the EU. Animal feed phosphates are chemicals used in feed for cattle, pigs, poultry, fish and pets All but one company settled, receiving a 10% fine reduction. This was the first cartel case settlement where the EC followed both the settlement and ordinary procedures.
EC Closes Investigation of Major Airline Joint Venture
July 26, 2010 – 2:27 pm
The EC closed its investigation into the British Airways, American Airlines, Iberia, joint venture, concluding that commitments that the airlines offered were sufficient to alleviate the anticompetitive concerns. The parties pledged to make landing and take-off slots available at London Heathrow airport to facilitate the entry or expansion of competitors on routes between London and several major US airports.
EC Fines Prestressing Steel Manufacturers
July 26, 2010 – 2:22 pm
The EC fined prestressing steel manufacturers for participating in an 18-year cartel in almost all EU Member States. Prestressing steel is used with in constructing foundations, balconies or bridges
ECJ Upholds De Beers’ Commitments re: Rough Diamond Purchases
July 26, 2010 – 2:15 pm
On June 29, 2010, the ECJ overturned the General Court’s judgment and reinstated the EC’s decision to make De Beers’ commitments to end purchases of rough diamonds from Alrosa binding.
EC Imposes Fines in Bathroom Equipment Cartel Case
July 26, 2010 – 2:10 pm
The EC has fined bathroom equipment manufacturers for participating in a price fixing cartel in six EU countries. The 12-year cartel included agreements involving sinks, bathtubs, taps, and fittings.
EC Reinstates Fine in Carbonless Paper Cartel Case
July 26, 2010 – 2:07 pm
The EC has reinstated a reduced fine on Bolloré for participating in price-fixing and market-sharing agreements in the carbonless paper market. The fine had been set aside by the ECJ on procedural grounds. The reduction is intended to take account of Bolloré’s cooperation.
ECJ Upholds Platerboard Cartel Fine Increase
July 26, 2010 – 2:01 pm
On 17 June, 2010, the European Court of Justice upheld the EC’s decision to increase by 50% the November 2002 fine imposed on the French cement firm Lafarge for participating in a cartel on the plasterboard market. The Court held that the increase was justified by the defendant’s repeated infringements of the law.