The European Court of First Instance has upheld European Commision’s imposition of antitrust fines against Dutch chemical group Akzo Nobel and French oil group Elf Aquitaine for illegally sharing markets and fixing prices. The CFI, however, reduced the fine imposed Hoechst, a German chemical firm, by 10 percent to €66.63m.
Dawn Raids on Spanish Cement Businesses
September 30, 2009 – 8:53 am
The European Commission inspected the premises of cement and related products businesses in Spain based on concerns about anticompetitive activity.
Interest Rate Fixing Ruling Upheld
September 30, 2009 – 8:52 am
The European Court of Justice has upheld a multi-million-euro fine imposed by the European Commission on Austrian banks (the so-called “Lombard Club”) for fixing interest rates.
Fines Imposed in Concrete Bar Cartel
September 30, 2009 – 8:50 am
The European Commission has imposed fines exceeding over €83m on eight companies for cartelizing the concrete reinforcing bar sector in Italy in violation of Article 65 (1) of the ECSC Treaty.
EU Court Rules Parent Liable for Conduct of Subsidiary
September 25, 2009 – 10:05 am
The European Union’s highest court upheld a €20.99million ($30.6 million) fine against Dutch chemical giant Akzo Nobel NV and four wholly owned subsidiaries for their alleged participation in a cartel over vitamin B4, used mainly in animal feed. Instead of requiring the parent company to play a direct role in violating competition rules, EU law only mandates that the parent be part of the “economic unit” that has taken part in the anti-competitive activities. This is approach is believed to be justified because the parent maintains “a decisive influence over” its wholly owned subsidiaries. The high court further pointed out that EU competition law deals with undertakings, which include “any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.” Thus, the court ruled that because Akzo owns 100 percent of the four units, a rebuttable presumption exists that the parent company controls their actions in the marketplace and as such remains jointly and severally liable for any of their anti-competitive behavior.
CFI Upholds EC Clearstream Ruling
September 25, 2009 – 10:02 am
The European Court of First Instance has tossed Deusche Borse AG subsidiary Clearstream Banking AG’s challenge of a European Commission decision finding that it abused its dominant market position. The court confirmed a 2004 EC decision finding that 1) Clearstream had a dominant position in the market for primary clearing and settlement; 2) Clearstream’s monopoly of custody services resulted in a corresponding monopoly of clearing and settlement services; and 3) Clearstream banking and Clearstream International abused their dominant positions by not providing Euroclear access to the services it had requested for more than 2 years while taking months to provide access to other customers. In its decision the CFI pointed out the special responsibility of undertakings in a dominant position not to allow their conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition, and Clearstream’s charging a higher per-transaction fee to Euroclear than to other similar customers amounted to discriminatory pricing prohibited by EC law.
ATM Fee Challenged Dismissed With Leave to Amend
September 21, 2009 – 9:05 pm
In In re: ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Northern District of California Judge Charles R. Breyer has dismissed a putative antitrust action over fees charged by financial institutions in First Data Corp.’s ATM network, but giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their claims. The complaint alleged a conspiracy to (1) fix interchange fees that the banks pay each other when depositors use ATMs belonging to competitors and (2) pass those fees along to consumers with a markup as a foreign ATM fee. Judge Breyer rejected this argument, ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown that customers were “locked in” to the Star network or that there were barriers to customers switching banks. The Court, however, denied another motion to dismiss by the banks, which claimed that the plaintiffs’ failed to allege an antitrust violation because it was necessary for banks to collectively set the interchange fee as a group in order to run the network. The court held that collectively setting rates was not obviously essential to the network.
WTO Issues Ruling on Airbus Subsidies
September 21, 2009 – 3:32 pm
The World Trade Organization has issued a long-awaited, but confidential, ruling in a dispute brought by Boeing Inc. over legality of billions of dollars of European Union subsidies given to French aircraft manufacturer Airbus SAS, reportedly finding that these subsidies, which Airbus received for building new aircraft, otherwise known as launch aid, were anti-competitive and broke trade laws. In the underlying dispute the U.S. has accused the EU of offering Airbus loans at significantly lower interest rates. The EU in turn accused the U.S. of offering Boeing billions of dollars in subsidies. Both the U.S. and the EU have refuted allegations against them.
Court Upholds Jury Verdict Finding Petition in Opposition to Generic Drugs Baseless
September 21, 2009 – 3:25 pm
In Louisiana Drug Co. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis et al., Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer Jr.refused to overturn a jury verdict or grant Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. a new trial in an antitrust class action filed by the drug wholesaler. The case accused Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC of submitting a sham citizen petition to delay release of generic versions of an arthritis drug. The antitrust suit was filed by Louisiana Wholesaler after Sanofi filed a citizen petition in response to five generic-drug makers’ new drug applications for Sanofi’s arthritis drug Arava. The petition was based on Sanofi’s concerns over how the companies were dosing the medication. However, according to Louisiana Wholesaler, Sanofi had willfully filed the petition to block the manufacture of generic versions of the drug and to maintain its monopoly power over the drug. During the trial, Sanofi presented evidence that its dosing concerns were not addressed by the FDA and that the FDA even took some of Sanofi’s dosing suggestions. In denying Louisiana Wholesale’s motion, Judge Baer held that the evidence presented by Sanofi was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the citizen petition was not objectively baseless.
Golf Package Monopolization Case Plaintiffs Must Show Inter-state Effects
September 10, 2009 – 9:41 am
In Mississippi Hotel & Lodging Association v. Mississippi Gulf Coast Golf Course Association et al., Southern District of Mississippi Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden has refused to dismiss a Mississippi hotel group’s claim against a local golf association alleging that the association sought to monopolize the golf package and hotel market by deterring hotels from participating in the MHLA’s golf voucher program and by running their own competing program. The Court gave the association a chance to revise its complaint to show that there was at least some element of interstate commerce, either that the transactions in question were in interstate commerce or the interstate flow of goods were affected, which is a required element in both allegations alleged in the suit.