Extraterritoriality

Anticompetitive practices

The EU Commission goes extraterritorial with its new white paper that proposes a new set of tools designed to address distortive effects in the internal market caused by subsidies granted by states outside the EU
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (London)
,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Paris)
,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (London)
The EU State Aid regime has long protected the EU internal market from anti-competitive subsidies granted by EU Member States. On 17 June 2020, the European Commission published a White Paper that proposes a new set of tools designed to address distortive effects in the internal market caused (...)

The UK Court of Appeal adopts a ruling allowing plaintiffs in cartel damages actions to advance claims based on overcharges incurred outside of the EU when they ultimately hit the sales of their finished goods within the EU (Liyama)
Dentons (Brussels)
,
Levi Strauss (Brussels)
On February 16, 2018, the UK Court of Appeal adopted its much awaited ruling in the iiyama case. Taking stock of the Court of Justice (CoJ) ruling in Intel last year, the Court of Appeal allows plaintiffs in civil cartel damages actions to advance claims based on overcharges incurred by their (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears interesting oral argument on Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act related issues (Best Buy / Hannstar Display)
GeyerGorey (Washington)
Ninth Circuit’s Oral Argument on FTAIA Related Appeal* If an FTAIA related case is ever taken by the Supreme Court I believe it will be a private civil price fixing damage case like Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hannstar Display Corporation. The Antitrust Division’s international cartel prosecutions (...)

The US Supreme Court declines to resolve a closely watched circuit split on the applicability of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Siemens (New York)
,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Supreme Court Surprises the Antitrust World with Denial of Cert in Motorola and AU Optronics* Today the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases, Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics et al. and Hsiung and AU Optronics Corp. America Inc. v. United States, declining to resolve (...)

The US Supreme Court declines an appeal for two related antitrust cases involving an international price-fixing cartel (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Womble Bond Dickinson (Washington)
Motorola and the Extraterritorial Application of US Antitrust Laws to Foreign Component Price Fixing Cartels* Last month the Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal for two related antitrust cases involving an international price-fixing cartel. The cases come from different circuits, one (...)

ECJ Advocate General Wathelet renders an opinion endorsing limits to the EU Commission’s abilities to impose fines (InnoLux)
Simmons & Simmons (London)
,
Simmons & Simmons (London)
In Brief On 30 April 2015, Advocate General (AG) Wathelet gave his Opinion on an appeal brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) by InnoLux Corp. (InnoLux) concerning the European Commission’s liquid crystal display (LCD) panels cartel decision. AG Wathelet agreed with (...)

The US Supreme Court clarifies the application of the foreign trade antitrust improvement act (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)
Supreme Court Has Opportunity to Clarify Application of Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act* Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked, in parallel petitions, to resolve a split between the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit on the application of the federal antitrust laws to a (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reminds companies that they cannot forum shop (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Siemens (New York)
,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Seventh Circuit to Motorola: No Rehearing En Banc* On December 1, 2014, we wrote about the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., which affirmed dismissal of the vast majority of Motorola’s claims regarding LCD panels. Motorola filed a petition for rehearing (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rules that cellphones manufacturer cannot recover overcharges to its non-U.S. subsidiaries that purchased price-fixed LCD panels abroad (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Brussels)
,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (New York)
,
Winston & Strawn (Washington)
This article has been nominated for the 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Motorola cannot recover overcharges to its non-U.S. subsidiaries that purchased price-fixed LCD panels abroad, (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holds that it is fair to require foreign subsidiaries of American companies to seek a remedy in the courts of the country in which they choose to incorporate (Motorola / AU Optronics)
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 99% of Motorola’s Claims in LCD Case Based on Motorola’s Lack of Standing* On the day before Thanksgiving—less than two weeks after oral argument—the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on Motorola’s interlocutory appeal in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics (...)

The Federal Court of Australia finds no breach of legislation in air cargo cartel case on ground that it did not involve a ‘market in Australia’ (Air New Zealand)
Deakin University (Geelong)
The Australian Federal Court recently handed down a decision relating to the international air cargo cartel (the Air NZ case). Despite finding that the defendants, Air New Zealand Limited (Air NZ) and PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd (Garuda), had engaged in price fixing conduct which might have (...)

The Indian Competition Authority conducts its first unannounced inspection in the premises of a UK-based Indian subsidiary (JCB India Private)
Sonam Mathur (New Delhi)
The Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) recently conducted its first unannounced inspection (‘dawn raid’) in the premises of the UK-based construction equipment maker’s Indian subsidiary, JCB India Private Limited. This dawn raid was conducted in relation to an on-going investigation of abuse of (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holds that import trade automatically falls within the scope of the Sherman Act and is not excluded by the FTAIA and that, under the Alternative Fine Statute, “gross gain” means gains by all participants in a conspiracy (AU Optronics)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
Ninth Circuit Weighs in on FTAIA and Alternative Fine Statute* The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a $500 million fine for AU Optronics (“AUO”) in the long-running liquid crystal display panel cartel case, and clarified its interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agrees to rehear the appeal dismissing an antitrust claim under FTAIA in a lawsuit alleging price-fixing of LCD modules (Motorola Mobility / AU Optronics)
GeyerGorey (Washington)
Seventh Circuit Panel to Rehear Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics: A Preview of Some of the FTAIA Issues in Component International Price Fixing Cases* The Seventh Circuit has decided to rehear the appeal from a judgment dismissing nearly Motorola’s entire $3.5 billion antitrust claim against (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejects antitrust claims finding that the injury preceded any domestic effect in the causal chain (Lotes / Hon Hai Precision Industry)
Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)
Second Circuit Clarifies Application of Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act* The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City on June 4 ruled that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) barred the antitrust claims of a Taiwanese electronics manufacturing company with facilities in (...)

The Competition Commission of Singapore issues first infringement decision in relation to an international cartel (CCS / Ball and roller bearings manufacturers)
BHP Billiton (Singapore)
On 27 May 2014, the Competition Commission of Singapore (the “CCS”) announced that it had issued an infringement decision, and imposed total financial penalties amounting to over S$9 million, against four Japanese bearings manufacturers and their Singapore subsidiaries (collectively, the (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of antitrust claims under FTAIA in a lawsuit alleging price-fixing of LCD modules (Motorola Mobility / AU Optronics)
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Motorola’s LCD Antitrust Claims Based on Foreign Purchases* On March 27, in the latest major development in Motorola Mobility’s lawsuit alleging price-fixing of liquid crystal display modules (LCDs), a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, including (...)

The Russian Competition Authority applies for the first time the exterritoriality provision of the national competition law (Uzmobile / Rubicon Wireless Communication)
Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (Moscow)
For the first time FAS applied the exterritoriality provision of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”* On 26th February 2014, the Commission of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) found two cellular operators: a specialized branch of “Uzbektelecom” OJSC – “Uzmobile” and a joint (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit dismisses price-fixing claims based on overseas purchases of LCD panels made by foreign affiliates (Motorola Mobility / AU Optronics)
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
,
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
LCD Court Dismisses Motorola’s Multi-Billion Dollar Antitrust Claims Based On Overseas Purchases* On January 23, in a landmark decision that is one of the most important yet to be handed down in the sprawling LCD antitrust litigation pending in various federal courts since 2006, Judge Joan (...)

The Competition Commission of Singapore issues first proposed infringement decision in relation to an international cartel (Ball and roller bearings manufacturers)
BHP Billiton (Singapore)
On 16 December 2013, the CCS issued a media release stating that a Proposed Infringement Decision (the “PID”) had been issued against four Japanese bearings manufacturers and their Singapore subsidiaries (the “Parties”) pursuant to the Singapore Competition Act, Chapter 50B (the “Act”). The CCS has (...)

The Federal Court of Australia hands down its first decision involving a bid rigging case after the entry into force of new cartel laws (Norcast / Braken)
Deakin University (Geelong)
In July 2009 Australia’s new cartel laws entered into force. On 19 March 2013 the Federal Court of Australia (Gordon J) handed down its first decision involving these new laws. Norcast S.ár.L(Norcast), a subsidiary of the private equity fund, Pala Investments Limited (Pala), alleged that Castle (...)

The Chinese NDRC imposes sanctions on members of international LCD panel cartel (Samsung / LG / AU Optronics / Chunghwa / Chimei InnoLux / HannStar)
Herbert Smith Freehills (London)
,
Herbert Smith Freehills (Hong Kong)
,
University of Hong Kong
This article has been nominated for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. 1. Summary On 4 January 2013, China’s National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced that it had imposed fines and penalties totalling RMB 353 (...)

The UK Court of Appeal paves the way for an ‘anchored’ follow-on claim against an industrial copper tube cartel liable under Art. 101 TFEU (Toshiba Carrier / KME Yorkshire)
Manchester University (Manchester)
On 13th September 2012, the UK Court of Appeal turned down an appeal by KME Yorkshire Ltd (“KME UK”) to summarily dismiss a private damages claim by Toshiba Carrier UK Ltd and other claimants (“Toshiba UK”). The claim was in respect of losses that occurred during the operation of a cartel between (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit potentially expands the extraterritorial reach of the US antitrust laws (Minn-Chem / Agrium)
Davis Polk & Wardwell (New York)
,
Davis Polk & Wardwell (New York)
,
Gibson Dunn (New York)
This article has been nominated for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Introduction The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Court”) recently potentially expanded the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. antitrust laws. (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit unanimously expands extraterritorial reach of US antitrust rules in a foreign price-fixing conspiracy case (Potash II)
Cleveland University - Marshall School of Law
Seventh Circuit Sitting En Banc Reverses in Potash, Announces Second Most Important of All FTAIA Opinions, Shores Up the Text Messaging Position on Conspiracy Pleading* Well, okay, I guess there might just possibly have been an appellate decision this week of even more pressing moment, but I (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit takes broad view of the foreign trade antitrust improvements Act (Minn-Chem / Agrium)
US Department of Justice - Antitrust Division (Washington)
,
Theodora Oringher (Orange County)
,
Katten Muchin Rosenman (Orange County)
Overview In a much-awaited decision, the Seventh Circuit has taken a broad view of the ability of U.S. courts to hear antitrust cases concerning alleged foreign cartel activity that plaintiffs contend has effects in the U.S. The Court’s ruling reviving a cartel case in the potash industry is (...)

The New York Court of Appeals holds that state law cannot reach a purely foreign antitrust conspiracy (Global Reinsurance / Equitas)
White & Case (New York)
,
White & Case (New York)
,
White & Case (New York)
In a decision that may reverberate beyond the antitrust context, New York’s highest court - the Court of Appeals - held that the state’s antitrust statute lacks the extraterritorial scope to reach a purely foreign alleged antitrust conspiracy. The decision could have broad implications for (...)

The US District Court for the Northern District of California jury finds two out of five defendants, all from Taiwan, guilty of conspiring to fix prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (AU Optronics)
White & Case (Washington)
,
White & Case (Washington)
This article has been nominated for the 2013 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Are Antitrust Violations Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude?* On March 13, 2012, the United States obtained its first trial convictions ever against foreign (...)

The Romanian Competition Authority fines two suppliers of prescription-only medicines and their distributors for parallel export restrictions (Baxter / Belupo)
Peli Filip (Bucharest)
,
Peli Filip (Bucharest)
On 28 October 2011, the Romanian Competition Council (the “Council”) published Decisions n° 51 and 52/28.10.2011 sanctioning two suppliers of prescription-only medicines - Belupo Iijekovi & kozmetica d.d. Croatia (“Belupo”) and Baxter AG Switzerland (“Baxter”) - and their distributors on the (...)

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that the FTAIA mandated dismissal of a putative class action brought against foreign airlines in a civil litigation concerning the allegation of price fixing (Lufthansa / Air France / KLM / Alitalia)
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
U.S. Court Grounds Europe-Japan Air Travel Price-Fixing Case* On October 16, 2009, Judge Louis H. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 6a ("FTAIA") mandated dismissal of a (...)

US District Courts grapple with novel legal issues relating to Chinese companies sued in U.S. for antitrust violations (Vitamin C and Magnesite cartel)
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
,
US Department of Justice - Antitrust Division (Washington)
As the world economy grows increasingly interconnected, plaintiffs’ lawyers in the US are searching for ways to sue foreign companies in US courts for anticompetitive behavior. Several recent Sherman Act cases have been brought against consortiums of partially government owned Chinese (...)

The Haarlem District Court rules on a dispute between the Dutch collecting society and the UK collecting society regarding the licensing of portfolio (BUMA / PRS)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
In a judgment dated 19 August 2008 (published only recently), the District Court of Haarlem in the Netherlands ruled on a dispute between the Dutch collecting society BUMA (“BUMA”) and the UK collecting society Performing Right Society Limited (“PRS”), regarding the licensing by BUMA of PRS‘ (...)

The German Federal Cartel Office clears a merger in the markets for diaphragm carburettors and hand-held power tools with remedies, including the divestment of a major business unit in the United States (STIHL / ZAMA Asia)
NOCON (London)
The operation On 4 April 2008, STIHL notified the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) of its intention to purchase ZAMA Asia. STIHL is a German company active in the development, production and sale of hand-held motorized outdoor equipment, including chain saws, brush cutters and industrial (...)

The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court quashes an NCA decision penalising agreements thwarting parallel imports of premium branded beverages (Diageo Brands)
Kinstellar (Sofia)
The first two sections of the article are derived from another article by the same author concerning the NCA decision in the case ; see Dessislava Fessenko, The Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition fined foreign-based suppliers for thwarting parallel imports of premium branded (...)

The Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition fines foreign-based suppliers for thwarting parallel imports of premium branded beverages (BG IN / Diageo Brands)
Kinstellar (Sofia)
By Decision n° 136 of 22 June 2006 (the “CPC decision”), the Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (the “CPC”) fined three foreign-based beverage suppliers for preventing parallel imports of premium branded alcohols into Bulgaria. The CPC decision is noteworthy for introducing the (...)

The US Supreme Court rules that the Sherman Act does not apply to claims arising solely out of the foreign effect of a global cartel (Hoffman-LaRoche / Empagran)
Jones Day (Washington DC)
As economic globalization marches on, one question that emerges repeatedly is how far the U.S. legal system can and should reach beyond its own borders. Answering that question has become particularly urgent in antitrust enforcement, as the effects of cartels and business practices increasingly (...)

The US Supreme Court restricts the applicability of US antitrust laws with regard to injuries suffered abroad holding that foreign nations can preserve competition without American interference (Hoffman-La Roche / Empagran)
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.: The Supreme Court Trusts That Foreign Nations Can Preserve Competition Without American Interference* In F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., the United States Supreme Court held that United States courts do not have jurisdiction over claims of (...)

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that US Courts have authority under the FTAIA to award damages for price-fixing in an action brought by foreign buyers and sellers (Kruman)
Hughes Hubbard & Reed (Washington)
The twenty years since the enactment of the Federal Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (the FTAIA) in 1982 have seen steady progress in the cooperation of antitrust authorities worldwide. Prior to the FTAIA’s passage, the US’s extraterritorial application of its antitrust laws created international (...)

Unilateral Practices

The EU Court of Justice quashes the 2014 judgment of the General Court that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion for an abuse of dominant position by implementing loyalty rebates based on exclusivity agreements (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
On September 6, 2017 ,the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) quashed the 2014 judgment of the General Court (GC) that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel Corporation Inc. (Intel) for abusing a dominant market position by implementing loyalty rebates based on (...)

The EU Court of Justice refers a case back to the General Court for re-examination (Intel)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (London)
Major victory for Intel as CJEU sends case back to General Court for re-examination* On 6 September, the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice (CJEU), released its long-awaited decision in the Intel case, in which the Commission imposed a fine of €1.06 billion – at the time, the largest fine (...)

The EU Court of Justice endorses an effects-based assessment of rebates (Intel)
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
This article has been nominated for the 2018 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU" or "Court") essentially held in Intel that the European Commission ("Commission") cannot (...)

The EU Court of Justice annuls the General Court ruling that upheld the fine imposed by the Commission for an abuse of dominance (Intel)
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Frankfurt)
What happened? The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") set aside a General Court ruling that had upheld a €1.06 billion fine imposed by the European Commission on Intel for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units ("CPUs"). Background In its 2009 decision, (...)

The EU Court of Justice issues landmark judgment on the legal treatment of fidelity rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued its long-awaited judgment in the Intel case (Case C-413/14 P), setting aside the General Court’s (“GC”) judgment. The GC must now re-assess the legality of the Commission’s decision in light of the ECJ’s ruling. Intel was (...)

The EU Court of Justice modernizes abuse of dominance (Intel)
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Brussels)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Brussels)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (London)
(“CJEU”) set aside General Court’s 2014 Intel judgment, upholding a European Commission (the “Commission”) decision fining Intel €1.06 billion for abuse of dominance through exclusivity rebates . The CJEU held that the General Court had erred in failing to examine all of Intel’s arguments calling (...)

The EU Court of Justice renders its judgment in a case regarding loyalty rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)
Baker Botts (Brussels)
An alternative view on accuracy and administrability Introduction In its judgment in Intel of 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rejected the notion that particular loyalty rebates granted by a dominant company are subject to a per se illegality standard of (...)

The Advocate General Wahl recommends that the EU Court of Justice grant an appeal against the judgment of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the Commission imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse of a dominant position (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
On 20 October 2016, Advocate General Wahl rendered his opinion on Intel’s appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) against the judgement of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2009 imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse (...)

The Advocate General Whatelet holds that the fact that a company owns a standard-essential patent does not necessarily mean that it holds a dominant position (Huawei / ZTE)
AnJie Law (Beijing)
,
AnJie Law (Beijing)
Huawei vs. ZTE - The Advocate General Has Spoken* Background On April 5, 2013, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (a German regional court) referred a set of questions relating to injunctive relief over standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in connection with a (...)

The General Court upholds in its entirety the Commission’s decision imposing a fine on a microprocessor manufacturer for abusing a dominant position in the market for desktop and laptop microprocessors (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
In a long-awaited judgment issued on June 12, 2014, the General Court upheld in its entirety the European Commission’s May 13, 2009, decision imposing a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel for abusing a dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. In particular, the court upheld the (...)

The EU General Court holds that the exclusivity rebates by their nature are capable of restricting competition and foreclosing competitors from the market for computer processors (Intel)
EFTA Surveillance Authority (Brussels)
Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission: Exclusivity rebates and abuse of a dominant position* Right then, folks, brace yourselves…. The much awaited judgment of the General Court in Case T-286/09 Intel v Commission EU:T:2014:472 came out today. It’s a whopper ! 255 pages. Summarising it is reminds me (...)

The EU General Court upholds the Commission’s decision regarding exclusivity rebates on the microprocessor market (Intel)
Dentons (Brussels)
This article has been nominated for the 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Introduction On 12 June 2014 the General Court issued a judgment upholding in its entirety the European Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 imposing a fine of (...)

The EU General Court provides an in-depth analysis of the anti-competitive character of the matter of exclusivity rebates offered to the OEM partners (Intel)
EFTA Surveillance Authority (Brussels)
Case T-286/09 Intel : Characterisation of rebates* It is time to get deeper into the frenzy of the judgment in Case T-286/09 Intel which we summarised very quickly here in our first post on the case. Let us start by looking at the characterisation of rebate schemes by the General Court. The (...)

The EU General Court upholds Commission’s decision imposing a fine on a manufacturer for restricting competition and foreclosing competitors by granting exclusivity rebates in the market for computer processors (Intel)
DG COMP (Brussels)
The views expressed in this memo are those of the author’s, and do not reflect the opinions of other CRA experts, or CRA’s clients. A test-case for the effects-based approach In a long-awaited ruling, General Court judgment has confirmed the Commission’s 2009 Intel décision. The Commission’s (...)

The EU General Court upholds the Commission’s decision finding that it had correctly demonstrated the anti-competitive nature of the exclusivity rebates granted by global manufacturer of computer processors (Intel)
DLA Piper Weiss-Tessbach (Vienna)
General Court upholds the EU Commission’s decision against Intel* On 12 June 2014 the General Court published its decision in the Intel case thereby upholding the Commission’s 2009 decision finding that Intel had abused its dominant position and imposed a fine of EUR 1.06 billion. On 13 May (...)

The EU General Court upholds the Commission decision in consideration of two exclusionary practices on the market for the supply of CPUs, opening the door to a further appeal to the Court of Justice and a possible application before the ECtHR (Intel)
University of Bristol - Law School
Could Intel challenge its 1bn Euro fine on grounds of ’corporate human rights’* After last week’s General Court Judgment in Intel v Commission, T-286/09, EU:T:2014:475, the 2 month period for Intel to appeal the confirmation of its 1bn Euro fine before the Court of Justice of the EU on points of (...)

The EU Commission fines a US semiconductor chip manufacturer for abuse of a dominant position (Intel)
DG COMP (Brussels)
,
DG COMP (Brussels)
,
DG COMP (Brussels)
"Commission finds abuse of dominance in the Intel case"* I. Introduction On 13 May 2009, the European Commission concluded its Intel investigation by way of a formal Decision. The Commission found that Intel had abused its dominant position in x86 Central Processing Units (CPUs) by engaging (...)

The EU Commission publishes a non-confidential version of its decision on abuse of dominance in the x86 CPU market (Intel)
Ashurst (Milan)
Commission publishes non-confidential version of its decision on Intel’s abuse of dominance in the x86 CPU market* On 21 September 2009, the Commission published a non-confidential version of its Intel decision, adopted on 13 May 2009, together with a summary of the key elements of the (...)

The EU Commission fines a leading computer manufacturer for abuse of its dominant position (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
,
Practising Law Institute (New York)
On 21 September 2009, the Commission published the non-confidential version of the Intel decision of 13 May 2009, and a summary of the decision was also published in the Official Journal of 22 September 2009. The materials confirm that the Commission has challenged two specific practices: (i) (...)

The EU Court of First Instance examines an appeal of a leading computer manufacturer against a Commission’s decision on abuse of dominant position (Intel)
Court of First Instance of Namur (Namur)
On 22 November 2008, details were published in the Official Journal of the European Union of an appeal brought by Intel to annul decisions of the Hearing Officer and the European Commission. The decisions relate to Article 82 EC proceedings regarding Intel’s alleged conduct in excluding its (...)

The EU Commission sents a supplementary statement of objections to a leading computer manufacturer (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
,
Practising Law Institute (New York)
On 17 July 2008, the Commission confirmed that it sent a supplementary Statement of Objections to Intel. This supplementary SO is said to reinforce the initial SO and also identify the Commission’s preliminary conclusion that Intel has engaged in three additional elements of abusive conduct. (...)

The US District Court for the District of Delaware dismisses antitrust claims arising from an allegation of foreign-related conduct that affected the plaintiff’s foreign sales (AMD / Intel)
Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
Court dismisses AMD’s “foreign commerce claims” against Intel for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing* In a recent opinion, the District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed AMD’s antitrust claims against Intel that arose out of Intel’s alleged foreign-related conduct that (...)

Mergers

The Australian Competition Authority and the Chinese MOFCOM sign a memorandum of understanding allowing the exchange of information between the agencies on mergers that affect both the Australian and Chinese markets
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Canberra)
Australia and China to increase cooperation on mergers regulation* The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM) have signed a memorandum of understanding. ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said the agreement paves the way for (...)

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal indicates the extraterritorial reach of UK merger control (Akzo Nobel)
United Kingdom’s Competition Authority - CMA (London)
The proposed acquisition by the Netherlands company Akzo Nobel of shares in an Italian competitor, Metlac, taking Akzo’s interest in Metlac from a pre-existing 49 per cent to full 100 per cent ownership, was notified to nine competition authorities across the world under their merger control (...)

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal upholds the Competition Authority’s decision to prohibit the merger of two foreign companies in the supply market of metal packaging coatings for beer and beverage cans (Akzo Nobel / Metlac)
Manchester University (Manchester)
On 21 June 2013, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) upheld the UK Competition Commission’s (“CC”) finding on 21 December 2012 that Akzo Nobel N.V.’s (“Akzo Nobel”) proposed acquisition of Metlac Holding S.r.l. (“Metlac Holding”) would lead to a substantial lessening of competition in the market (...)

The Competition Commission of India imposes a fine for belated merger filing in a global merger and acquisition transaction (Titan International / Titan Europe)
Trilegal (Mumbai)
The Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) recently imposed a penalty of INR 10 million (approximately USD 182,000) on Titan International, Inc., a tyre manufacturing company in the USA, for belatedly notifying its acquisition of the entire share capital of Titan Europe plc, based in the UK. The (...)

The German Parliament introduces a new threshold for premerger notification
Jones Day (Frankfurt)
,
Jones Day (Dusseldorf)
,
Jones Day (Frankfurt)
Germany has introduced a new threshold for premerger notifications to its merger control system, effective tomorrow, 25 March 2009. This amendment to the German Act Against Restraints Of Competition (ARC) is expected to reduce the number of merger control filings in Germany dramatically. In (...)

The German Competition Authority prohibits a merger in the laser area cleared by the US DoJ showing its reluctance to apply a more effects-based short-term approach instead of a rather long-term structural approach (Coherent / Excel)
Gleiss Lutz (Munich)
,
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (Munich)
On 25 October 2006, the German Federal Cartel Office prohibited the proposed merger between the two American companies Coherent, Inc. (Coherent) and Excel Technology, Inc. (Excel), each a market leader in the laser area . Facts Coherent is an American company, listed on the US stock exchange, (...)

The Hungarian Competition Authority approves a merger in the dairy industry subject to a restriction on share acquisition (Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding / Koninklijke Numico)
Lakatos, Köves (Budapest)
The operation The HCO authorized the acquisition of Numico by Friesland. FEH belongs to the Friesland Group and owns 33 per cent of the shares of MiZo, which has a market share of 10 per cent. MiZo is under liquidation. Nutricia with a market share of 30 per cent is one of the Hungarian (...)

The French Minister of Economy clears in Phase II an extra-territorial merger in the flight services sector subject to behavioural remedies consisting of an information barrier (Boeing / Jeppsen)
French Competition Authority (Paris)
The operation The Minister cleared in phase II a merger between Boeing and Jeppesen subject to remedies. The markets The markets involved were the flight planning services, the flight operating services, the flight information services and the accessories. The relevant markets were defined (...)

Procedures

The US Supreme Court rules, in relation to a class action for conspiracy to fix vitamin prices, that federal courts determining foreign law are not bound by the foreign government’s own interpretation of that law (Animal Science products / Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical)
Norton Rose Fulbright (New York)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (Houston)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (Houston)
This article has been nominated for the 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In an opinion issued on June 14, 2018, the United States Supreme Court addressed the effect U.S. courts should give to a foreign government’s interpretation of its (...)

The US Supreme Court says that judges who determine foreign law in federal courts are not strictly bound by foreign government’s statements (Animal Science Products / Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical)
Bona Law (San Diego)
In an antitrust case deciding a non-antitrust-specific issue, the US Supreme Court held in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.(the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation) that to determine foreign law in federal courts, judges are not strictly bound by that foreign (...)

The US Supreme Court states that a federal court is not bound by the official interpretation of the foreign law even if it is relevant (Animal science products / Hebei welcome pharmaceutical)
Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)
Supreme Court Clarifies Deference Owed a Foreign Government* In a decision that will have a significant impact on antitrust enforcement, particularly private damages actions against international cartels, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that a federal court considering a case in which foreign (...)

The US Supreme Court holds that federal courts should accord respectful consideration to foreign government submissions when analyzing comity issues but are not bound by them (Animal Science products / Hebei welcome pharmaceutical)
Crowell & Moring (Washington)
,
McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
Supreme Court Clarifies Principles of International Comity in Vitamin C Ruling* Alert: The Supreme Court clarified the principles of international comity this week in a ruling pertaining to the long-running vitamin C antitrust class action litigation. International comity is the recognition a (...)

The EU Court of Justice confirms potential of high cartel fines for vertically integrated multinational companies (InnoLux)
White & Case (Brussels)
EU judgment confirms potential of high cartel fines for vertically integrated multinational companies* On 9 July 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued an important judgment concerning the basis on which cartel fines by the European Commission should be calculated for (...)

The Russian Competition Authority fines a foreign company for failure to submit information within a designated period (Linenhall Overseas)
Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (Moscow)
FAS imposed a second fine upon a foreign company in two months* At the end of January 2015, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) fined “Linenhall Overseas Limited” 500,000 RUB for failure to submit information within the designated period. The company is registered in British Virgin (...)

The EU General Court holds that a duty to procure specific documents might be imposed on the Commission at the request of an undertaking which is the subject to an antitrust investigation under certain circumstances (Intel)
Mircea (Bucharest)
Access to documents not to be found in the Commission’s possession I. Background The Intel Cases have occupied the international arena of antitrust litigation for the past ten years and a definitive resolution has not been reached yet. The administrative proceeding initiated by the Commission (...)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York interprets the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act to preclude antitrust claims by a Chinese manufacturer against its Chinese competitor (Lotes / Foxconn)
University of Indiana
,
Clements & Shackle (New York)
Lotes Co., a manufacturer of USB devices, sued its competitor Foxconn in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of Section One and Section Two of the Sherman Act. Lotes competes directly with Foxconn in the market for making and selling USB (...)

The US Supreme Court leaves in place third circuit rule welcoming challenges to foreign conduct into U.S. Courts (Animal Science)
Jones Day (Cleveland)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
This week the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not review a Third Circuit decision (Animal Science) that made it easier for antitrust plaintiffs to bring claims in U.S. courts for conduct occurring overseas under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”). The Supreme Court’s (...)

A US District Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding indirect purchaser claims based on foreign sales (TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation)
Jones Day (Cleveland)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
This article has been nominated for the 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Recent decisions by the Third Circuit and the Northern District of California make it easier for plaintiffs to bring claims under the Foreign Trade Antitrust (...)

A US Court of Appeals holds that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act imposes a substantive merits limitation rather than a jurisdictional bar (Animal Science Products/China Minmetals)
Jones Day (Cleveland)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
,
Jones Day (Chicago)
This article has been nominated for the 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Recent decisions by the Third Circuit and the Northern District of California make it easier for plaintiffs to bring claims under the Foreign Trade Antitrust (...)

A US District Court applies broad standard to enforce FTC subpoena (Church & Dwight)
Jones Day (Washington DC)
,
Jones Day (Washington DC)
In a rare court decision on the enforceability of agency subpoenas, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission (« FTC ») is entitled to receive documents from the Canadian subsidiary of Church & Dwight Co. (« C&D ») relating to the sale (...)

The UK High Court allows the US to seek extradition of a suspect on charges of price fixing and obstruction of justice (Ian Norris)
Innovate Finance (London)
,
Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) (Luxembourg)
1. The facts The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is increasingly willing to pursue criminal price-fixing cartels affecting US markets. The Ian Norris decision is a landmark decision for the reason that it is the first time the US is seeking the extradition of a foreigner for an antitrust crime. (...)

A US Court of Appeals holds that American courts have authority to hear antitrust claims brought by foreign plaintiffs against foreign defendants over foreign conduct (Empagran)
Hughes Hubbard & Reed (Washington)
The twenty years since the enactment of the Federal Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (the FTAIA) in 1982 have seen steady progress in the cooperation of antitrust authorities worldwide. Prior to the FTAIA’s passage, the US’s extraterritorial application of its antitrust laws created international (...)

The US Supreme Court validates a statute authorizing Federal Courts to order discovery for use in foreign proceedings (AMD, Intel)
Jones Day (Washington DC)
In Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted a statute that Congress enacted to assist « foreign tribunals » in obtaining evidence in the United States. Advanced Micro Devices (« AMD ») had filed an antitrust complaint against its chip-making competitor, (...)

Regulatory

The Chinese MOFCOM, NDRC, and SAIC issue a joint enforcement draft opinion on the policy statements regarding Chinese foreign investment
Sheppard Mullin (Beijing)
Is China Giving Carte Blanche for Anti-Competitive Conduct by PRC Companies Doing Business Overseas?* PRC companies should be careful not to interpret as carte blanche for anti-competitive behavior a recent policy statement by the Chinese government encouraging PRC companies to coordinate (...)

The Chinese Price Regulator imposes higher fines against pricing and other competition law violations as new rules proposed
Jones Day (Beijing)
,
Gibson Dunn (Hong Kong)
,
Jones Day (Beijing)
Recent actions by the Chinese price regulator, the National Development and Reform Commission (« NDRC »), indicate an increasing emphasis on enforcement against pricing and other competition law violations. Companies in agriculture industries and other business sectors that could implicate (...)

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues