In the first episode of a three-part series on U.S. antitrust enforcement, host Nick Levy interviews Cleary Gottlieb colleagues George Cary and Elaine Ewing about U.S. merger control under President Biden.

Continue Reading Antitrust Review U.S. Edition, Episode 1: U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Under President Biden

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

On 2 September 2020, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DoJ), the US Federal Trade Commission, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the New Zealand Competition Commission, and the Canadian Competition Bureau signed a framework agreement to improve cooperation in competition investigations. Continue Reading CMA Signs ‘Five Eyes’ Cooperation Framework With U.S., Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Competition Authorities

On June 19, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against a General Court order rejecting an appeal filed by RF, a Polish transportation company based in Gdynia, a city on the Baltic sea coast.[1] The General Court had rejected RF’s appeal because the original, signed version reached the General Court’s premises after the deadline to file an appeal. The General Court concluded that RF’s failure to meet the deadline due to a postal delay did not amount to an unforeseeable event or force majeure, which would have allowed for its acceptance, notwithstanding its late arrival in Luxembourg. Continue Reading RF v. Commission (Case C-660/17 P)