A Dutch Court Hands Down the First Substantive Damages Judgment in the Netherlands for an Infringement of Competition Law

by David Henry and Wilko van Weert

In a recent judgment, a District Court in the Netherlands (the DCA) handed down a judgment in what is the first substantive damages judgment in the Netherlands for a breach of competition law.  In issuing the declaration of liability, the DCA held that ABB must pay damages to the Dutch grid operator TenneT for the overcharge that arose as a result of the gas insulated switchgear cartel, putting aside arguments by ABB that any damages should take into account the fact that the overcharge had been passed on to customers of TenneT. The court considered that in this case the indirect purchasers were likely to benefit from compensation to the direct customer.

To read the full article, click here.

German Federal Cartel Office Levies Administrative Fine Due to Incomplete Merger Notification

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and Robert Bäuerle

The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has imposed an administrative fine for the submission of incomplete information in a merger notification.  The missing information concerned details about shareholdings essential for the competitive assessment analysis.  The shareholdings belong to a private individual who controlled the notifying party.  Companies and their shareholders required to submit notifications should be aware that the omission of information in merger notifications before the FCO can result in fines not only for the notifying company but also for the company(ies) and individual(s) controlling it.

To read the full article, click here.

Germany Amends Competition Law: Key Changes

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and Robert Bäuerle

On 18 October, the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) adopted several changes to German competition law.  The new legislation still has to be passed by the second chamber of the German parliament (Bundesrat) but the changes are expected to come into force on 1 January 2013.  Overall, the changes are less far-reaching than many of the proposals discussed during the preparatory phase of the reform.  The changes, however, are significant and will have to be taken into account by companies doing business in Germany. The article summarizes the main points of the reform.

To read the full article, click here.

Antitrust Compliance Programs: Time to Recalibrate Your Risk-Benefit Analysis?

by Joseph F. Winterscheid and Andrea L. Hamilton

Recent developments in the global legal landscape point to the inevitable conclusion that having an effective antitrust compliance program in place is now more important than ever.

To read the full article, click here

European Commission Considers Taking Over Cartel Investigations to Prevent Exploitation of German Law Loophole

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

Under German law, companies may escape cartel fines by undertaking an internal restructuring.  The German competition authority has indicated a willingness to reallocate such cases to the European Commission, which can impose a fine on the corporate group regardless of any internal restructuring.  Commission officials speaking at a conference have suggested recently that the Commission would be willing to take over cartel cases from EU Member States, even at a late stage in the proceedings, in order to fine undertakings for their anti-competitive behaviour.

To read the full article, click here.

European Commission Considers Taking Over Cartel Investigations to Prevent Exploitation of German Law Loophole

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

Under German law, companies may escape cartel fines by undertaking an internal restructuring.  The German competition authority has indicated a willingness to reallocate such cases to the European Commission, which can impose a fine on the corporate group regardless of any internal restructuring.  Commission officials speaking at a conference have suggested recently that the Commission would be willing to take over cartel cases from EU Member States, even at a late stage in the proceedings, in order to fine undertakings for their anti-competitive behaviour.

To read the full article, click here.

German Court Protects the Confidentiality of Leniency Submissions

by David Henry, Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

In the wake of the seminal European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in case C-360/09 - Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, Amtsgericht Bonn (Bonn local court), in a decision rendered on 18 January 2012 (case 51 Gs 53/09), has refused to give a damages claimant access to leniency submissions held by the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO).  Although strongly welcomed by the FCO, the decision is a blow to potential damages claimants in Germany, especially as it is not open to appeal.

To read the full article, click here

Antitrust Inspections in The Energy Exchange Market

by David Henry and Philipp Werner

On February 7, the European Commission (EC) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority conducted unannounced inspections in the energy exchange market.  Representatives of Nord Pool Spot (Lysaker, Norway) and EPEX Spot (Paris, France and Leipzig, Germany) announced that the companies were subject to inspections.  It is not known whether other companies were also raided.  The inspections show that the EC’s enforcement policy extends beyond the retail level of the energy sector.

To read the full article, click here.

Jumping The Train: The General Courts Sets a High Bar for Private Damages Claimants to Join Cartel Decision Appeals

by Philipp Werner

The General Court rejects intervention of damages claimants in appeal before the European courts by taking a narrow and rather formalistic view of legal interest in the appeals.  While it is true that damages actions are legally possible as stand-alone actions, the reality in Europe is that third parties’ damages actions stand and fall with the decision that finds an infringement.

 

To read the full article, click here.

German Competition Authority Starts Sector Inquiry Into Food Retail

by Philipp Werner and Martina Maier

The German Competition Authority has started a sector inquiry in the food retail sector yesterday and has sent questionnaires to 21 retailers and over 200 producers in the food and beverages industry.

According to the press release (at the moment only available in German at: http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/download/pdf/Presse/2011/2011-09-16_PM_SU_LEH.pdf), the inquiry will focus on the following product categories: canned vegetables, milk, butter, cold coffee and milkdrinks, ketchup, frozen pizza, roasted coffee and sparkling wine.  The inquiry could be extended to further product categories in the future.

The Authority will primarily investigate the question whether the retailers enjoy significant buyer power vis-à-vis producers.

A sector inquiry concerns a whole sector and is not directed against any particular undertakings. However, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the Authority may initiate antitrust investigations against one or more undertakings in the sector.

German Federal Cartel Office Consults on Substantive Merger Control - Draft Guidance Focuses on Market Dominance

by Philipp Werner, Martina Maier and David Henry

On 21 July 2011, the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) published a consultation paper on substantive merger control called “Draft Guidance on Substantive Merger Control” (Draft Guidance).  This is the first time the FCO has consulted on a guidance paper.  Comments on the draft guidance can be submitted until 21 September 2011.

Against the fact that the German merger control regime catches a large number of mergers (around 1000 mergers a year) and that the FCO has a strong enforcement record (15 Phase II- proceedings in 2010), the Draft Guidance provides detailed insight in the approach taken by the FCO in assessing mergers.

German merger control is applicable if the following three cumulative turnover thresholds are met: the aggregate worldwider turnover of all undertakings concerned exceeds € 500m, the turnover in Germany of one undertaking concerned exceeds € 25m and the turnover in Germany of another undertaking concerned exceeds € 5m.  In addition, German merger control catches the acquisition of control as well as the acquisition of a minority shareholding of 25 percent or – in cases of “competitively significant influence” even shareholdings below 25 percent.  The Draft Guidance does not deal with the question under which conditions German merger control is applicable, it only concerns the substantive analysis of mergers which fall under German merger control.

The Draft Guidance reflects the existing approach of the FCO rather than proposing an new way of thinking. While it also encorporates economic considerations, it largely provides a agency friendly interpretation of the FCO’s decision practice and relevant case-law.  Still, it shows a move towards more economic analysis and a deviation from the FCO’s traditional, more market structure oriented approach.  But it seems unlikely that the strict enforcement policy of the FCO will change as a result of the new guidance paper.

The Draft Guidance focuses on the question whether a merger will lead to the creation or strengthening of dominance.  Unlike in other jurisdictions, such as the US and EU, the creation or strengthening of a dominant position is the criterion for the prohibition of a merger in German merger control.  While discussions are under way about the introduction of the  SIEC test (“significant impediment to competition”) in an effort to harmonize German with EU merger control rules, the FCO makes it clear that it anticipates that the Draft Guidance will remain relevant even if the underlying test changes.

In terms of substance, the Draft Guidance distinguishes between horizontal, vertical and conglomerate mergers and between single firm dominance and collective dominance.  The definition of dominance and the substantive assessment relies on standard theories of harm and recognised economic theories that are also used by other competition authorities such as the European Commission.

Some elements of the Draft Guidance reflect a traditional German understanding of merger control which may differ from the approach in other jurisdictions.  Thus, the Draft Guidance suggests that the purpose of merger control is to protect competition as an effective process, which will also protect the interests of consumers, not necessarily in the short term but rather in the longer term. It further suggests that protecting competition may sometimes coincide with protecting competitors.  Concerning the threshold for the FCO’s intervention in a merger case, it is sufficient if competition is weakened due to changes in the market structure and market power increases correspondingly.  An appreciable effect of the merger on the market is not required.  Equally, the FCO is not required to proof an impairment of total welfare or consumer welfare but it is sufficient to prove that the merger threatens the functioning of competition.

The Draft Guidance states that market shares are an appropriate starting point for the assessment, but the value of market shares as an indication for market position depends largely on the conditions prevailing on the individual market in question.  The Draft Guidance does not contain any presumptions based on particular market shares or market concentration levels (HHI).  It only notes that the statutory presumption of dominance may apply if neither the existence or the absence of market power can be proved.  This presumption kicks in at a market share of 33 percent for single firm dominance (50 percent for collective dominance of three or less undertakings, 66 percent for collective dominance of five or less undertakings).

The Draft Guidance recognises that vertical mergers have a less pronounced and more indirect effect on competition because they do not lead to a reduction of the number of actual competitors in the market.  However, they may have anti-competitive effects in terms of input foreclosure, customer foreclosure or exchange of commercially sensitive information.  With respect to conglomerate mergers, the Draft Guidance notes the standard theories of harm.  Unlike the EU Commission’s guidance, there are no safe harbour market shares in the Draft Guidance.

The Draft Guidance also discusses the failing firm defence as well as the possibility of balancing the anti-competitive effects with pro-competitive effects on different markets. The Draft Guidance is rather restrictive here.  Pro-competitive effects are only taken into account if they are structural.  Potential advantages to the economy as a whole, other policy objectives and public interest considerations will not be taken into account, nor are mere commercial benefits for the merging partiers, such as improved capacity utilisation or cost savings.  Efficiencies resulting from the merger will not be taken into account, unless these efficiencies also have a structural impact.

The German and English versions of the Draft Guidance are available on the FCO’s website at www.bundeskartellamt.de.
 

EU's Top Competition Court Rules that Companies Seeking Damages May Have Access to Leniency Statements

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner, Andrea Hamilton and David Henry

A recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union may make it easier for prospective claimants to obtain at least those leniency statements and related materials that are submitted to the national competition authorities of the EU Member States.  Companies doing business in the European Union are urged strongly to follow developments in this area and factor the risk of disclosure into the decision of whether or not to apply for leniency.

To read the full article, click here.

Supreme Court Allows the Passing-On Defense in Antitrust Damages Actions (Judgment of 28 June 2011 - KZR 75/10)

by Philipp Werner

The German Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling handed down on 28 June 2011, has held that members of a cartel are able to defend themselves against a claim for damages by raising the defense that the relevant applicants have passed on the damage caused by higher prices onto a downstream market (the so-called "passing-on defense").  At the same time, the Supreme Court held that indirect purchasers have standing to claim damages following a violation of the antitrust rules.

The judgment is of considerable practical importance. In parallel with efforts at EU level to encourage private antitrust enforcement, actions for damages in Germany against members of a cartel have increased in number and significance.  In the majority of cases, it is the amount of damages which is the subject of proceedings, since the relevant infringement of the rules has already been established pursuant to a legally binding administrative decision in accordance with § 33(4) ARC.

Cartelists, therefore, face in addition to fines also damages claims potentially reaching into the millions.  The level of damages is assessed on the basis of the difference between the cartel price and a given hypothetical market price.  As a result of the passing-on defense, the level of damages claimed can, however, be considerably reduced.  Economic studies show that in theory direct purchasers pass on to a large extent higher (cartelised) prices on to their customers. In practice, however, the passing on of damage can be difficult to prove, since the defendant does not have information at its disposal relating to the prices charged by damages claimants on downstream markets.

The admissibility of the passing-on defense was, on a number of grounds, denied by both the first instance court and the Berlin High Court.  It was, however, accepted by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. Indeed, in the literature, the issue has been extensively debated.  It was, inter alia, open to question whether § 33(3)(2) ARC ("If a good or service is purchased at an excessive price, a damage shall not be excluded on account of the resale of the good or service") excludes the possibility to plea the passing-on defense.  It was also argued that the passing-on defense would undermine the effectiveness of private antitrust enforcement. In contrast, the Supreme Court made it clear that in accordance with the general principles underlying the calculation of damages, the passing on of damage must be taken into account.

Given the lower sums of damages available and the clear difficulties relating to the discharging of the burden of proof, it is questionable whether indirect purchasers will make use of their right to bring a claim. It is therefore expected that the passed on part of the damage resulting from a cartel will in practice remain unclaimed.

For more information, please see our previous blog entry, "German Supreme Court Allows Indirect Purchaser Claims and Passing-On Defense in Cartel Damages Actions."

German Antitrust Regulator Steps Up the Fight Against Gun-Jumping

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

More than 100 countries worldwide have merger control regimes.  In the majority of these regimes, including the U.S., EU and most EU Member States, parties to a transaction may not close a deal without approval from the competition antitrust regulator.  An infringement of this obligation, or "gun-jumping", carries risks that are generally well understood.  But companies should be aware that the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has recently taken a more aggressive approach in its enforcement of gun-jumping, in particular concerning the fining policy for gun-jumping.

To read the full article, click here.

German Supreme Court Allows Indirect Purchaser Claims and Passing-On Defence in Cartel Damages Actions

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, the German supreme court (Bundesgerichtshof-BGH) has clarified two important questions concerning cartel damages actions in Germany.

First, indirect purchasers as well as direct purchasers are entitled to seek damages from cartel members. Second, cartel members can use the "passing-on" defence and argue that their customers have passed on the damage suffered from the cartel (BGH, judgement of 28 June 2011 - KZR 75/10).

Interplay Between Antitrust and Criminal Law in Europe

by Veronica Pinotti and Martino Sforza

In Europe, the interplay between antitrust and criminal law at the national level may vary significantly by jurisdiction. Some European Union member states, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Romania, have criminalized competition law. Other jurisdictions, such as Germany and Italy, do not envisage criminal penalties for anticompetitive practices; however, such conduct may sometimes qualify as a separate criminal offense.  The following cases, across Europe, show that there appears to be a general trend towards more effective enforcement against serious antitrust violations – including by means of criminal penalties against individuals – and not only in the countries with criminal competition laws.

To read the full article, please visit:  http://mwe.com/info/pubs/pinotti0611.pdf

Top EU Court Rules That Companies May Have Access to Leniency Statements Submitted to National Competition Authorities

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and David Henry

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 14 June 2011 followed a case that originated in Germany.  Pfleiderer, a firm in the wood industry, was considering a damages claim against members of a paper cartel.  It sought access to the cartel files held by the German Competition Authority (FCO) in order to substantiate its claim.  A dispute followed over whether disclosing the documents of companies who had cooperated with the FCO would undermine the national leniency programme since potential leniency applicants would fear eventual disclosure.

A German court asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling whether or not the provisions of EU competition law are to be interpreted as meaning that cartel victims can be granted access to leniency applications received by an EU Member State competition authority.

The ECJ has held  that it was for the courts and tribunals of each EU Member State on the basis of their own national law to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by EU law.  The upshot of this ruling is therefore that each judge in each Member State has a discretion as to what type of leniency document can be disclosed to a cartel victim.  The ECJ has therefore distanced itself from recommendations made by the Advocate General who suggested that documents which existed before the cartel was uncovered could be disclosed  but said that submissions drafted for the purpose of revealing the infringement should be protected.

For leniency applicants, weighing the decision whether to apply for leniency has now become even more complex. On the one hand, a potential leniency applicant stands to benefit from immunity, or a reduction, from fines. On the other hand,  it will now have to take into consideration not only the remaining risk of a fine and criminal sanctions but also the the fact that private damages claimant might get easier access to incriminating evidence. Such complexity is all the more greater given that the ECJ's ruling may lead to different results in different European countries.

 

German Regulator Steps Up Enforcement of Merger Standstill Obligation

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

The majority of merger control regimes around the world impose standstill or waiting period requirements for notifiable transactions, e.g. the US, the EU and most EU Member States. If a transaction meets the filing thresholds, it must be notified to the competent antitrust regulator and must not be closed without prior approval by the antitrust regulator or the expiration of the applicable waiting period.

Under German merger control rules, a notifiable merger must not be implemented without prior clearance decision. An infringement of the standstill obligation can (theoretically) lead to fines of up to 10 percent of the group's worldwide turnover. In addition, the infringement of the standstill obligation renders the contracts ineffective under German merger control rules.

The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has recently taken a stricter approach to the enforcement of the merger standstill obligation. In the past, the risk of fines was minor if the merger did not lead to any serious competition concerns, if it was the group's first infringement of the standstill obligation and if the company itself notified the FCO ex post of the implemented merger.

We see now a growing number of decisions imposing fines for the infringement of the standstill obligation (sometimes referred to as "gun jumping" in the United States). In May 2011, in the latest of a string of such decisions, the FCO imposed a substantial fine for infringement of the standstill obligation although the merger did not lead to any serious competition concerns and although the company had itself notified the implemented merger. These facts were only taken into account as mitigating factors for the calculation of the fine.

The European Commission has also recently imposed fines for the infringement of the standstill obligation.

In this changing environment, the filing requirement and the standstill obligation cannot be seen as a pure formality. It is therefore essential to always verify whether and in which jurisdictions a transaction is notifiable - and not to close the deal before the relevant competition authorities have cleared the deal.

U.S. Dept. of Justice and Germany's FCO Permit Patent Acquisition With Modifications

by Stefan M. Meisner

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that CPTN Holdings, LLC,  a joint venture owned equally by Microsoft Corp., Apple, Inc. , Oracle Corp., and EMC Corp,  has agreed to modify its agreement to acquire certain patents from Novell, Inc. in order to allay antitrust concerns raised by the transaction.  The Department had expressed concerns that the original deal would threaten the ability of open source software to innovate and compete in critical software markets.  The modifications to the deal will allow it to go forward, but the Department emphasized that it will continue to monitor distribution of the patents to ensure continued competition. The transaction also received antitrust clearance from Germany's Federal Cartel Office.  The German and American authorities cooperated closely on the matter, aided by waivers from the parties that allowed information sharing between the two agencies.  Regulators are increasingly attuned to the effects of intellectual property transactions on competition.

For more information on the CPTN Holdings, LLC transaction, you may find the following links useful:

Department of Justice Press Release
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2011/270086.htm

Law 360 article
http://www.law360.com/competition/articles/240355?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=competition

International News Issue 2 2010