On 17 May 2019, hearings regarding collective proceedings orders (“CPOs”) in two collective damages actions (also “Trucks” cases) were adjourned
Wolseley and Others v Fiat Chrysler and Others
This case is one of seven sets of ongoing proceedings against addressees of the July 2016 European Commission decision which fined participants in a truck manufacturing cartel (the so-called “Trucks” cases).
Media Saturn and Others v Toshiba; Media Saturn and Others v Panasonic
These two linked claims seek to recover damages incurred as a result of alleged anti-competitive conductconcerning the sale of cathode ray tubes (“CRTs”).
Secretary of State for Health v Servier and Others
On 17 April 2019, the High Court ruled on the extent to which factual findings of the General Court of the European Union are binding on claimants in follow-on damages actions before UK national courts. This case concerns damages claims against Servier, following the European Commission’s 2014 infringement decision, which found that Servier had abused a dominant position and entered ‘pay for delay’ agreements with rivals.
Merricks v Mastercard
Following a 2007 European Commission infringement decision concerning Mastercard’s multilateral interchange fee (MIF), Mr. Merricks sought to bring collective proceedings against Mastercard. These proceedings sought to claim damages on behalf of 46.2 million people in the UK who were purportedly affected by the MIF.
Dixon/Europcar v Mastercard
On 9 April 2019, the CAT granted Mastercard partial permission to appeal the CAT’s February 2019 judgment. In that judgment
Stuttgart Court of Appeals Rules on the Beginning of the Suspension of Limitation Periods
On April 4, 2019, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals confirmed the Stuttgart Regional Court’s judgment that found Daimler liable for damages as a result of its participation in the Trucks Cartel.[1] In particular, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals held that the limitation period for damages arising from the Trucks Cartel had been suspended as of the European Commission’s (“EC”) dawn raid of the defendant’s premises in 2011.
Recent Jurisprudence on Prima Facie Evidence vs. Factual Presumption in Cartels Follow-on Damages Actions
On December 11, 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) held that, at least in relation to quota fixing and customer allocation cartels, plaintiffs could no longer rely on prima facie evidence to establish that a cartel infringement led to causal damage.[1] The FCJ accepted, however, a factual presumption (tatsächliche Vermutung)— softer compared to prima facie evidence—that cartels would lead to an overcharge, and held that such a presumption was of “high indicative significance”. Since then, lower courts have rendered a number of judgments and struggled with applying the new evidentiary standard in practice.
Skanska: The Court of Justice Rules That the Principle of Economic Continuity Is Also To Be Applied in Private Damages Actions
On March 14, 2019, the ECJ held that the determination of persons liable for damages for an EU competition law infringement is governed by EU law, not national law.[1] The ECJ clarified that an acquirer company may be held liable for private damages caused by a cartel participant even after the cartel participant was subsequently liquidated, provided that the acquirer took over the assets that constituted the business. The ECJ agreed with Advocate General Wahl[2] that the principle of economic continuity should apply not only in public, but also in private antitrust enforcement.
U.K. Antitrust Collective Damages Action
On 11 March 2019, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) announced that it had received two applications to bring collective proceedings on behalf of all affected commuters, alleging that three U.K. train operators had engaged in exploitative abuses of dominant positions.[1] This is the first time that claimants have filed applications to commence collective proceedings on a standalone basis (i.e., without the benefit of a prior infringement decision that binds the Courts) since the introduction of the collective action procedure on 1 October 2015.