On January 27, 2021,[1] the Court of Justice confirmed a 2018 General Court judgment,[2] upholding a 2014 Commission decision which found Goldman Sachs jointly and severally liable, together with its former subsidiary Prysmian, for Prysmian’s participation in a cartel. The judgment strengthens the parental liability doctrine with potential implications for financial investors.
The Commission Approves London Stock Exchange’s Acquisiton of Refinitiv, Subbject to Access Remedies: A (Likely) First in the Industry
On January 13, 2021, the Commission conditionally approved the acquisition by the London Stock Exchange Group (“LSEG”) of Refinitiv, following an in-depth Phase II investigation.[1] The decision likely marks the first-ever access commitment in a merger decision approved by the Commission in the financial sector.[2]
The French Competition Authority Reports on Its 2020 Activity and Announces Its Enforcement Priorities for 2021
On December 23, 2020, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) presented a summary report of its 2020 activity and set out its priorities for 2021.[1]
The Commission Publishes Report on the Implementation of the Damages Directive
Mastercard Incorporated and Others (Appellants) V Walter Hugh Merricks CBE (Respondent)
On 11 December 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the standard to be applied when certifying collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for breaches of the Competition Act 1998 (the Act). Under the Act, collective proceedings may not be pursued beyond the issue and service of a claim form without the CAT’s certification, in the form of a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO).
Proposals for Reform of Competition Law Policy: Proposed Revision of the Commission’s Market Definition Guidance
Over the past several months, there have been a number of statements by politicians and Member State governments regarding the reform of EU competition law. Much of this debate is fundamentally linked to how authorities should define the relevant product and geographic markets that guide their antitrust and merger investigations.
New Investigative Power for the French Competition Authority to Access Telephone Communications Data
Decree n°2019-1247 of November 28, 2019, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on November 29, 2019 (the “Decree”), provides the procedural framework for the FCA’s new power to access telephone communications data for the purpose of antitrust investigations under Article L. 450-3-3 of the French Commercial Code. This framework was introduced by the Pacte Law [1] and allows the FCA to request access to technical information regarding the identity of a caller, the telecommunication terminals used, the data, time, and duration of each call, and the phone numbers called. It will be operational as soon as the Data Request Supervisor (“contrôleur des demandes de données de connexion”) is appointed (the Supervisor will be appointed among the judges of the French Administrative or Civil Supreme Court).[2]
CMA Proposes New Procedural and Substantive Merger Guidance
On 6 November, the CMA published new draft guidance on jurisdiction and procedure in UK merger cases (Draft J&P Guidance) and on the CMA’s mergers intelligence function. On 17 November, it published new draft guidance on the substantive assessment of mergers in the UK (Draft Substantive Guidance). The draft sets of Guidance incorporate developments in the case law, reflect the evolution of the CMA’s policies and procedures, and take account of changes in the legal framework concerning public interest mergers. Together, they confirm the CMA’s expansive approach to asserting jurisdiction and reinforce a more interventionist and less formalistic approach to assessing mergers, especially in digital markets, that has been evident in the run-up to Brexit.
Presumption of Decisive Influence: Court of Justice Confirms in Pirelli That Parent Companies Will Pay the Price for Errant Subsidiaries
On October 28, 2020, the Court of Justice rejected an appeal by Pirelli & C. SpA (“Pirelli”) against a 2018 judgment of the EU General Court upholding a 2014 Commission decision which held the power cables manufacturer jointly and severally liable, with its former subsidiary Prysmian, for Prysmian’s participation in a bid-rigging cartel. Pirelli’s appeal focused on the concept of parental liability and the Commission’s obligation to explain its reasoning.
TAR Lazio Annuls ICA Decision Concerning Car Financing Cartels
On October 24, 2020, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (the “TAR Lazio”) upheld the applications lodged by nine leading captive banks,[1] two further financial institutions holding equity stakes in two of the applicant captive banks, seven automotive groups as well as trade associations Assilea and Assofin, for annulment of the 2018 decision by which the Italian Competition Authority (the “ICA”) imposed on the applicants[2] total fines of approximately €670 million for their participation in a cartel concerning the sale of car vehicles through the provision of financial products.[3]