© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Cartels Fines, Leniency, Settlement John Pheasant November 28, 2007 Brussels.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Second CIS Local Counsel Forum Park Inn Azerbaijan Hotel, Baku, Azerbaijan Tomasz Dobrowolski, Partner
Advertisements

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Pharmaceutical Compliance Forum Clinical Trials Case Study Stephen J. Immelt Thursday, November 8, 2007.
© 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Rebecca Armour April 2009 UK Rules on Corporate Expatriations Washington DC.
Art. 6 – 8 of the draft Unitary Patent Regulation Prof. Dr. Winfried Tilmann.
RESTRICITVE PRACTICES AND LENIENCY Zuzana Šimeková European Union – Opportunities and Challenges June 2009, Dubrovnik.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. NACD Capital Area Chapter Washington, DC September 9, 2008 Activist Hedge Funds in the Board Room: What Public.
Wireless Access Code: Download the agenda PDF at:
16 July 2011 The Business Case for Mediation (for “ICC Arbitration & Amicable Dispute Resolution – Focus on India”) Jonathan Leach, partner, Hogan Lovells.
John W. McReynolds Assistant Chief, New York Field Office Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice Judicial Training Program Moscow, Russia July.
Enforcement pluralism Regulation of market conduct –EU Commission General surveillance of compliance with the Treaty “Trustbuster”: DG Comp –National Competition.
April 8, 2013 NPE litigation in Japan Activities and impact of FRAND commitments Eiichiro Kubota, Hogan Lovells Tokyo.
Procedure under the Merger Regulation. Procedure – legal documents The Merger Regulation Art. 4 – notification of concentration Art. 7 – suspension of.
Onscreen cover – Alternative 5 Joint and several liability for cartel fines: lessons from Gigaset and Siemens Austria 73 TH LUNCH TALK OF THE GCLC Winfred.
January 2012 Workshop on competition law aspects International Legal Expert Meeting, January 2012 Leiden University, The Netherlands Jacques Derenne.
January 29-30, 2013 Tokyo, Japan Exportation of Knock-Down Kits: (Direct or Indirect) Infringement? AIPLA Mid-Winter 2013 Pre-Meeting Yusuke Inui, Attorney.
"The Role of Arbitration in the Dispensal of Justice" Does Arbitration Maintain the Advantages it Traditionally Enjoyed? Nathan Searle, Senior Associate.
Investing in Hotels in China: What You Need to Know The China Hotel Investment Summit 2005 April 2005 IMAGE HERE.
© 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Joseph A. Levitt Hogan & Hartson April 21, 2009 FDA Regulation of Bottled Water An Overview.
BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON,
1 Putting the Settlement Procedure into Practice: the DRAMs Decision Kris Dekeyser Head of Unit DG Comp, Cartels, G6 - Settlements.
© 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. ACCA-SoCal Chapter Roundtable “The Year that Privacy and Data Security Become Priority Risk Management.
Unfulfilled Promises: Affordable Housing in Metropolitan Washington Presentation to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Mary Anne Sullivan,
Ethical Issues in Setting Litigation Reserves Clay James, Partner at Hogan Lovells Annie Kao, Senior Litigation Counsel at Vail Resorts December 8, 2010.
Nicolas Pourbaix, Senior Associate
LUMSA – International Commercial Law 24 October 2014 Prof. Avv. Roberto Pirozzi
January 2012 Workshop on Radio Frequencies International Legal Expert Meeting, January 2012 Leiden University, The Netherlands Gerry Oberst.
Protection of Intellectual Property in the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan By Natalia Gulyaeva.
27 October 2011 Competitive dialogue in UK PFI PPP Forum Perspective Andrew Briggs, Partner.
December 8, 2014 Healthcare/Privacy Current Law Affecting Uses of Health Data Melissa Bianchi Partner.
Hogan Lovells The solicitor's role Gathering the evidence –Disclosure in most cases: –Disclosure in most fraud cases: 1.
27 September 2013 Promoting Russia as a Seat of Arbitration: What Are the Best Ways Forward? Peter Pettibone.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Transatlantic merger enforcement Catriona Hatton November 28, 2007 Brussels.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. The Evolving Standards For Defining “Exclusionary Conduct” in the United States Philip C. Larson November 28,
Philip Kienapfel, European Commission, DG Competition
Mini Plenary 3: Cartel Enforcement and Leniency in Developing Agencies Leniency Programme in Turkey Gülçin DERE Competition Expert Turkish Competition.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Clinical Trials Track: Key Compliance Risks FDA Overview Meredith Manning November 8, 2007.
Interface between Leniency, Direct Settlement and Criminal Sanctions – A UK perspective European Competition Day, Brno Philip Collins Chairman Office of.
European Commission, DG Competition, Directorate G, Cartels Interface Between Leniency and Settlements in European Commission proceedings Sari Suurnäkki,
Doc.: IEEE /1129r1 Submission July 2006 Harry Worstell, AT&TSlide 1 Appeal Tutorial Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Alice Valder Curran, Partner Tuesday, October 17, 2006 Private Prices, Public Markets: The Evolution of Price.
Defining and applying mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Relevant changes to the amount of fine. Defining and applying mitigating and aggravating.
Settlements Wouter Wils * BIICL, 15 May 2008 * All views expressed are strictly personal.
Mutuals' Forum 2010 Regulators & Legislators: Appreciating the Mutual Difference John Gilbert, Consultant 4 November 2010.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. National Pharma Audioconference Bristol-Myers Squibb 2007 Settlement Stephen J. Immelt, Esq. November 26, 2007.
Alice Valder Curran, Partner October 28, 2008 Assessing Future Regulatory and Compliance Developments – The Current Landscape and Future Legislative Changes.
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Dawn raids.
Russian response to US sanctions: what has been done and what to expect? 14 August 2014.
SEVEN YEARS OF SETTLEMENT DECISIONS: AN APPRAISAL AFTER THE TIMAB JUDGMENT 76TH LUNCH TALK OF THE GCLC, 29 June 2015 Flavio Laina Head of Unit - Cartel.
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE TOKYO WASHINGTON D.C. Todd J. Friedbacher.
LUMSA – International Commercial Law 30 October 2015 Prof. Avv. Roberto Pirozzi
Leniency Programme Igor Pospíšil Director of the Cartel Department St. Martin Conference 2009 November 12, 2009.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Catriona Hatton, Partner 26 May 2008 Medical Device Companies Antitrust Compliance Programmes.
© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Monopoly Power: Getting it and keeping it US Perspective Sharis Pozen, Partner ACCE Seminar 13 May 2008.
The EU Response Developments in EU Cartel Enforcement Howard T. Rosenblatt Howrey LLP Brussels International Cartels Law Seminars International Conference.
Turnaround Management Association of Southern Africa - presentation Panamo Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nel and Another NNO NUMSA v Wilro Supplies CC & Companies.
Current trends in EU single firm conduct policy and case law
The Finnish leniency system - experiences and challenges
Blockchain – The Next Great Disruptor?
2017 ICN Annual Cartel Workshop Romina Polley
FSMA Enforcement: Focus on Inspections
The EU Competition Law Fining System European Parliament Committee on economic and monetary affairs Working group on competition policy Antoine Winckler.
European Commission's fining policy 10 February 2015
ICN | The interplay between private enforcement and leniency policy
Commissioner’s Legal Advisor - Italian Competition Authority
Single Firm Conduct: EU / US convergences and divergences
ICN webinar on parental liability 20 September 2017 Tímea Pálos
The Finnish leniency system - experiences and challenges
Appeal Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year
Transmission Workstream 2nd December 2010
Presentation transcript:

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Cartels Fines, Leniency, Settlement John Pheasant November 28, 2007 Brussels

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Outline Fining policy Leniency The proposed settlement procedure

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Total Cartel Fines Imposed

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines The New Fining Guidelines 1. Up to 30% of relevant turnover 2. Multiplied by each year of the infringement to 25% for cartel “entry fee” 4. Adjusted for aggravating and/or mitigating factors, including % recidivist uplift (for each previous infringement) 6. Increase for deterrence

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines 1. Relevant turnover=100x20%=20 2. Duration=5 yearsx5= entry fee+25%= Aggravation/ mitigation +0= Recidivism (one previous infringement) +100%= Deterrence+0=250

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines First case under the New Guidelines Professional Videotape: Sony, Fuji, Maxell Total annual sales=€115m (in 2001) Duration=3 years Total fines=€ 75m

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Fines Professional Videotape €m 115x20%=23 x3 years=69 AggravationSony+30% LeniencyFuji-40% Maxell-20% 75

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Leniency Immunity applicant:100% First leniency applicant:30-50% Second leniency applicant:20-30% Subsequent leniency applicants:up to 20%

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Settlement 200+ leniency applications since 2002 Fewer than 10 cartel decisions annually Significant backlog (the time bomb) Need for an expedited administrative procedure

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 1 - Commencement Party requests settlement discussions Commission does not consider case suitable at any time Standard procedure Commission considers case suitable Min. 2 weeks for other parties to declare Bilateral procedure

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 2 – Disclosure and Discussion Disclosure by Commission of essential elements: alleged facts gravity duration attribution of liability range of fines evidence Party can assert views and decide whether to settle Common understanding: scope of objections range of fines Possible access to Commission’s file: re any other aspect of the cartel if procedural efficiencies not jeopardised

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 3 – Settlement Submissions Commission sets time limit for final WSS WSS acknowledgement facts legal qualification duration as per Stage 2 maximum amount of fine rights of defence respected no access to file or hearing Community language WSS = commitment to cooperate irrevocable unless Commission does not endorse WWS in SO and then Decision

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 4 – Statement of Objections & Reply SO: Endorses WSS if it reflects: description of cartel undertaking’s involvement legal qualification Reply: Min. 1 week time-limit: simple/unequivocal confirmation that SO and WSS correspond continued commitment to settlement procedure SO: Does not endorse: standard procedure acknowledgements in WSS withdrawn New Defence No confirmation: Standard procedure

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 5 – Decision & Settlement Reward Consultation with Advisory Committee NO other procedural step, e.g. no hearing or access to file Decision: if consistent with WSS, settlement request cannot be revoked amount of the fine Commission may still adopt a different position New SO Reduction in the fine ? Equivalent for all parties Increase for deterrence not greater than x 2 Added to leniency

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Stage 6 – Appeal Decision may be appealed to CFI

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Settlement - Issues Procedural efficiency v. Rights of the Defence Bilateral settlements in a multilateral environment Commission’s discretion: no certainty until Decision Determination of incentives: what is the discount? Is it too complicated?

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Final Thought BEWARE – THE TIME BOMB!

© Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Geneva Hong Kong London Los Angeles Miami Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Shanghai Tokyo Warsaw Washington, DC For more information on Hogan & Hartson, please visit us at