EUROPEAN UNION
EC Fines Truck Producers €2.93 Billion for Participating in Cartel
July 19, 2016
The European Commission discovered that MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH, AB Volvo, Renault Trucks SAS, Daimler AG, Iveco Magirus AG and DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH participated in a long-running cartel in the European truck market.
The cartel involved:
- Coordinating gross list prices for medium and heavy trucks
- Coordinating timing for introduction of emission technologies
- Passing on emission technology costs to customers
The infringement lasted for 14 years between 1997 and 2011.
The investigation revealed that cartel meetings were conducted:
- At trade fairs and business events
- Through phone conversations
- Via electronic communication among German subsidiaries
MAN received complete immunity under the Leniency Notice for revealing the cartel’s existence.
Volvo/Renault, Daimler and Iveco received reduced fines for cooperating during the investigation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mylan to Divest Rights in Generic Drugs to Settle FTC Charges
July 26, 2016
Mylan Inc. agreed to divest rights and assets related to two generic pharmaceutical products to resolve FTC concerns arising from its proposed acquisition of Meda.
The products involved were:
- 250 mg generic carisoprodol tablets
- 400 mg and 600 mg generic felbamate tablets
The FTC observed that the acquisition could substantially lessen competition and increase consumer prices.
Under the proposed order:
- Alvogen Pharma US, Inc. would acquire rights relating to felbamate tablets
- Mylan would provide transitional services and FDA support
- Indicus Pharma LLC would independently compete in the carisoprodol market
UNITED KINGDOM
CMA Fines Trod Ltd. for Anti-Competitive Pricing Agreement
August 12, 2016
The Competition and Markets Authority fined Trod Ltd. for entering into an anti-competitive agreement with GB Eye Ltd. concerning posters and frames sold on Amazon’s UK website.
The companies agreed not to undercut each other’s prices on Amazon Marketplace.
The cartel arrangement was implemented through:
- Automated repricing software
- Price coordination mechanisms
- Online marketplace restrictions
The illegal conduct continued from March 24, 2011 to July 1, 2015.
GB Eye Ltd. was not fined because it reported the cartel and cooperated during the investigation.
REPUBLIC OF INDIA
CCI Imposes Penalty on Cement Companies for Cartelization
Case No. 29/2010 | August 31, 2016
The Competition Commission of India imposed penalties on cement companies and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association for cartelization practices in the cement industry.
The investigation originated from allegations filed by the Builders Association of India.
The Commission found that cement companies:
- Shared pricing information
- Coordinated production levels
- Restricted market supplies
- Acted collectively through the Cement Manufacturers’ Association
The conduct was held to violate:
- Section 3(1) of the Competition Act
- Section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act
- Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act
The CCI imposed penalties totaling approximately INR 6,700 crores and directed the companies to cease anti-competitive activities.
CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Coal India Limited
Case No. 40/2016 | July 14, 2016
The complaint challenged eligibility conditions specified in a Global Tender Notice issued by CSIR-CIMFR relating to coal sample collection and transportation services.
The Informant alleged that the pre-qualification requirements were unfair and discriminatory.
The Competition Commission observed that:
- Several organizations were already enlisted for such services
- Consumers and procurers are entitled to impose quality standards
- Strict procurement conditions are not inherently abusive
The Commission held that the right of a consumer to exercise commercial choice is sacrosanct in a market economy.
Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
MARKET DEVELOPMENTS
FTC Issues Complaint Against 1-800 Contacts
August 08, 2016
The Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against 1-800 Contacts alleging anti-competitive agreements restricting competition in online search advertising auctions.
The agreements allegedly restricted competitors from bidding against each other on search advertising platforms including:
- Bing
The FTC observed that the agreements:
- Restricted price competition
- Reduced truthful advertising availability
- Allocated advertising auctions
- Favored 1-800 Contacts in online search visibility
The FTC alleged that the conduct violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
CCI Approves Gerdau / Sumitomo / JSW Combination
C-2016/06/412 | August 17, 2016
The proposed combination involved establishment of a joint venture company in Brazil for manufacturing and sale of:
- Rolling Mill Rolls
- Main shafts for wind turbines
- Rings for wind turbines
The Competition Commission observed that the parties had insignificant or no market presence in India in the relevant sectors.
The Commission concluded that the proposed transaction was unlikely to cause appreciable adverse effects on competition in India.
Accordingly, the combination was approved under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act.
Phoenix Group Holdings / AXA Sun Life Merger Inquiry
August 02, 2016
The Competition and Markets Authority reviewed Phoenix Group Holdings’ acquisition of AXA Sun Life Direct Limited and Winterthur Life UK Holdings Limited.
The investigation focused on overlaps in:
- Protection policies
- Pension policies
- Investment and savings policies
- Guaranteed over 50s policies
The CMA concluded that sufficient competitive constraints would remain after the merger.
The authority therefore determined that the merger would not substantially lessen competition.
Hammerson / Grand Central Shopping Centre Acquisition Inquiry
July 28, 2016
The Competition and Markets Authority reviewed Hammerson plc’s acquisition of the Grand Central Shopping Centre business in Birmingham.
The investigation focused on the supply of retail space within Birmingham City Centre.
The CMA observed that although the parties competed to some extent, the retail spaces offered were differentiated in important respects.
The authority further noted that sufficient alternative retail options remained available post-merger.
Accordingly, the merger was not referred for detailed investigation.
EC Opens In-Depth Investigation into Dow / DuPont Merger
August 11, 2016
The European Commission initiated a Phase II investigation into the proposed merger between Dow Chemical Company and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company.
The investigation focused on overlaps in:
- Crop protection products
- Seeds
- Petrochemical products
The Commission identified concerns relating to:
- Herbicides
- Insecticides
- Nematicides
- Fungicides
- Polyolefins and monomers
The EC concluded that the merger could substantially lessen competition in already concentrated markets.
EC Approves Konecranes Acquisition of Terex’s Crane Business Subject to Commitments
August 08, 2016
The European Commission reviewed Konecranes Plc’s acquisition of Terex Corporation’s Material Handling & Port Solutions segment.
The investigation identified significant overlaps in:
- Electric chain hoists
- Wire rope hoists
- Standard cranes
- Container handling equipment
The Commission observed risks of reduced competition and potential price increases in the EEA market, particularly in Germany and France.
To address concerns, Konecranes agreed to divest:
- Its global hoists business
- Crane handling material business
- The associated German production facility
The commitments were accepted and the transaction was approved subject to compliance with the divestiture obligations.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this private circulation is not legal advice and should not be treated as such.
The information is taken from public domain and is purely for private and non-commercial purposes.
We do not represent that the information is correct, accurate, complete or non-misleading.
This disclaimer will be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of India, and any disputes relating to this disclaimer will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic of India.
Doc ID: CL/15/16
