The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2023”.
Last year we noted that U.S. antitrust enforcement was in a period of nearly unprecedented public attention and policy debate, and also that the Biden Administration seemed likely to launch significant new policy initiatives as the year progressed.
Continue Reading 2023 Update: U.S. Antitrust Sets Sail into Uncharted Seas
In the third episode of a three-part series on U.S. antitrust enforcement, host Nick Levy interviews Cleary Gottlieb colleagues Bruce Hoffman and Leah Brannon about the U.S. enforcement environment for Big Tech, the agencies’ application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the prospects for legislative change. Continue Reading Antitrust Review U.S. Edition, Episode 3: The Spectre of Enforcement
In the fourth episode of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy interviews Professor Eleanor M. Fox, who for 40 years has been one of the world’s most distinguished academic commentators on antitrust law and has played an instrumental role in bringing competition law to emerging markets. Nick and Eleanor discuss U.S. antitrust enforcement under President Biden, the EU’s new regulatory regime for Big Tech, strengths and weaknesses in current enforcement policy, how to inspire students, and much more.
Listen below, or select from the following links:
The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2022”.
In the 2021 edition of this memo, we wrote that antitrust in 2020 received more political and media attention than at any recent time. 2021 beat that standard in multiple ways, and 2022 looks to continue that trend. In addition to continuing the major tech cases brought under the Trump administration, 2021 saw unprecedented levels of legislative activity in antitrust (both federal and state), competition policy taking a leading position across federal agencies and startling new approaches at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in particular – new approaches that, while they haven’t yet produced a wave of new enforcement actions, have required changes in thinking about and approaching antitrust issues. We expect these trends to accelerate in 2022. Continue Reading U.S. & EU Antitrust: Developments and Outlook in 2022
On December 7, 2021, the Commission, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) published a Joint Statement establishing the EU-U.S. Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue (the “Policy Dialogue”). Continue Reading EU-U.S. Launch Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue to Foster Cooperation in Competition Policy and Enforcement in Technology Sector
On 7 June 2021, the CAT ruled on the preliminary issue of whether English or Italian law governs claims made by claimant companies incorporated in Italy (the Italian Claimants). The broader claim relates to an Article 101 TFEU infringement decision concerning default multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) set by Mastercard and Visa. Continue Reading Westover Ltd v Mastercard Inc.
On March 26, 2021, the French Conseil constitutionnel ruled that Article L. 464-2(5), 2° of the French Commercial Code, under which the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) may impose a fine of up to 1% of an undertaking’s turnover for obstructing an investigation, was contrary to the French Constitution.[1] Continue Reading The Conseil Constitutionnel Holds That Article L. 464-2(5), 2° of the French Commercial Code Is Contrary to the Constitution
On March 18, 2021, the Court of Justice ruled on Pometon SpA (“Pometon”)’s appeal against the General Court’s judgment in the steel abrasives[1] hybrid cartel settlement case. The Court of Justice ruled that the General Court had breached the principle of equal treatment when recalculating the fine imposed on Pometon by the Commission in 2016, the only non-settling party in this case. The Court of Justice therefore further reduced Pometon’s fine to €2.6 million, imposing an approximate 60% discount on the original fine calculated by the Commission.[2] Continue Reading Pometon v. Commission: The Court of Justice Sheds Light on the Principle of Equal Treatment and the Presumption of Innocence in Hybrid Cartels Settlements
On October 5, 2020, the General Court dismissed an action for annulment by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement (the “parent companies”) against the Commission’s April 2017 decision,[1] which prohibited their acquisition of Cemex’s Croatian and Hungarian subsidiaries through Duna-Dráva Cement (“DDC”), a full-function JV (“JV”) equally owned and controlled by the parent companies. [2] Continue Reading HeidelbergCement & Schwenk Zement v. Commission: The General Court Provides Jurisdictional Clarity Where a Joint Venture Acts as the Acquirer