Category 'EU Enforcement'

April 9, 2018

2018 S&S Annual Antitrust Report

Shearman & Sterling publishes its sixth annual Antitrust Annual Report today. The 2018 Report discerns two key trends – a global resurgence of controls on foreign direct investment and the focus on ‘fairness’ developing in the European Union (EU). The report also discusses various other important developments in international competition law enforcement.

Categories: EU Antitrust Basics, EU Cartels, EU Distribution, EU Enforcement, EU Mergers, US Antitrust Basics, US Cartels, US Distribution, US Enforcement, US Mergers

June 13, 2016

Goeteyn and Rawnsley Author Article on EU Damages Directive and Access to Evidence for Antitrust Damages Actions

Partner Geert Goeteyn (Brussels–Antitrust) and counsel Collette Rawnsley (London–Antitrust) have authored an article in The Strategic View – Competition Litigation 2016 on “The EU Damages Directive and Access to Evidence for Antitrust Damages Actions.” In this article, the authors consider how the EU Damages Directive seeks to provide victims of competition law infringements with easier access to evidence for the purposes of private damages actions, while preserving the effectiveness of public enforcement tools.

Categories: EU Antitrust Basics, EU Cartels, EU Distribution, EU Enforcement

May 26, 2016

Antitrust Annual Report Surveys Recent Antitrust Developments

In its 2016 Annual Report, Shearman & Sterling's Antitrust Group discusses 19 major trends in antitrust law worldwide in merger control, cartels, compliance, unilateral conduct, antitrust litigation, and state aid.

Categories: EU Antitrust Basics, EU Cartels, EU Distribution, EU Enforcement, EU Mergers, US Antitrust Basics, US Cartels, US Distribution, US Enforcement, US Mergers

March 14, 2016

The EU Commission Should Provide Concrete Reasons for Requesting Information

The statement of reasons of a decision requesting information from a company must be appropriate and disclose the purpose of the request so that the company can provide the Commission with the information necessary to that purpose. Information request decisions shall require only information which may assist the Commission in investigating its suspicions of infringement. The Court of Justice ruled on 10 March 2016 that, as a result, when sending information request decisions to companies the Commission is obliged to substantiate its statement of reasons with a clear indication of the products or services under investigation and its suspicions of infringement. The decision’s addressees must be in a position to clearly and unequivocally understand the reasoning followed by the Commission to assess the necessity of the information in relation to the purpose of the information request. The requirement to state “the purpose of the request” will prevent the Commission from relying on requests for information to get disproportionate—and likely irrelevant—amounts of information and guarantee—in that regard—the respect of the rights of defense of the addressees of the information request decisions.

Categories: EU Enforcement

March 11, 2016

Launch of First UK Opt-Out Class Action

October 1, 2015, marked the entry into force of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), bringing with it an opt-out class action regime for the private enforcement of infringements in competition law. Now, in March 2016, the first UK opt-out class action has been launched; but is this a suitable ‘test case’?’

Categories: EU Antitrust Basics, EU Cartels, EU Enforcement

October 1, 2015

Consumer Rights Act 2015: Private Actions for Breaches of Competition Law – Overview of the New Regime

The entry into force of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA15”) on 1 October 2015 sees the overhaul of the private enforcement regime in England & Wales. The CRA15, which amends both the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, introduces a number of significant reforms to the current regime, in particular ‘opt-out’ collective actions and collective settlements. In addition, from 1 October 2015, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) will have the jurisdiction to hear ‘stand-alone’ cases and to grant injunctions. Other key features of the new regime include the creation of a ‘fast-track’ procedure for straightforward claims; the harmonisation of the limitation period applicable to claims in the CAT with that of the High Court; and the introduction of voluntary redress schemes approved by the Competition and Markets Authority. See here for our analysis of the case.

Categories: EU Antitrust Basics, EU Enforcement

Archives