Peter D. Camesasca

The European Commission has added to its call to Member States to act on foreign direct investment (“FDI”) by announcing that it is ready to support EU-level cooperation on FDI now. Spurred on by the COVID-19 crisis and the perceived vulnerability of key EU assets, the informal cooperation (...)

On June 21, 2018, the European Commission (“Commission”) started a new investigation to determine whether so-called destination clauses in Qatar Petroleum’s liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) supply contracts with European buyers infringe the European Union (“EU”) antitrust rules. The investigation comes (...)

On July 1, 2016, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy published a proposed draft amendment to the German Act against Restraints of Competition, which would introduce a new merger control notification threshold based on transaction value. The draft (i) introduces a new (...)

On Friday, July 21, 2017, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) handed down its second class certification decision under the class actions regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “Act”). It dismissed the application for two reasons. First, the proposed representative (...)

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) has handed down its first class certification judgment in relation to the class actions regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “Act”). The result? The hearing has been adjourned, with the proposed representative allowed to file and (...)

The UK has introduced a class action mechanism that could lead to an increase in antitrust litigation. Most significantly, the new mechanism will enable opt-out class actions, which are potentially effective in aggregating individually low value claims, into a single high value, and (...)

On July 16, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU” or “the Court”) issued its long-awaited judgment in Huawei Technology Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH. The CJEU found that the holder of a standard essential patent (“SEP”) may, in certain circumstances, abuse its dominant (...)

On July 9, 2015, the EU’s top court, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU), rendered its long-awaited ruling in the Innolux - LCD cartel appeal. The Innolux case is effectively the EU counterpart of the U.S. Motorola litigation in that it concerns fundamental issues of antitrust jurisdiction over (...)

On 22 June 2015 the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) issued its decision in the supermarkets cartel, fining 18 supermarkets and suppliers of personal care, hygiene and cleaning products for coordinating retail price increases between 2002 and 2007. This occurred in the context of a cartel (...)

Earlier today, the European Commission (the “EC”) announced the launch of a sector inquiry into the e-commerce sector in the European Union (“EU”). This is the first sector inquiry in the EU since 2008, and is part of the EC’s broader Digital Single Market (“DSM”) Strategy. The Directorate General (...)

In an important ruling rendered March 19, 2015 in the Bananas case, the EU’s top court definitively upheld the EU Commission’s expansive view of cartel conduct and held that no “fix” (as in agreement) is needed for the EU to conclude that cartel activities have occurred. It is no secret that the (...)

The Reference On 5 April 2013, the Landgericht Düsseldorf referred questions relating to injunctive relief over standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) to the Court of Justice (“CJEU”) in connection with a patent dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”) and ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH (...)

Private damages claims in the EU are a fact of life these days. As a result of the persistent and creative efforts of claimants, the days when cartel damages were a U.S. aberration of merely potential concern for companies facing cartel charges in the EU are long gone. The silver lining for (...)