General Antitrust

This tool enables subscribers to search the Country Q&A in the PLC Competition multi-jurisdictional guide by question and jurisdiction. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "submit" button. Please note that the law stated dates for each jurisdiction covered may not be the same. To check the law stated dates for each jurisdiction, please visit the individual article. Please also note this project is currently being updated so the Q&A tool will not include all available jurisdictions in this subject area.

In the UK, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 has made substantial amendments to the criminal cartel offence in the Enterprise Act 2002. These amendments removed the "dishonesty" element from the offence, introduced a series of circumstances preventing an agreement from amounting to a criminal cartel and introduced three substantive defences to the criminal cartel offence. This article considers: the reasons for the dishonesty element in the criminal cartel offence under the Enterprise Act; the extent to which the dishonesty element of the offence was successful in achieving its original objectives; whether reform was necessary; how the reforms sought to address the problems of the previous system; and the effect the reforms will have on the enforcement of competition law and the conduct of companies and their employees. This article is part of the PLC Competition and Cartel Leniency multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Sweden. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Belgium. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. It covers relevant triggering events and thresholds; notification requirements, procedures and timetables; third party claims; exclusions and exemptions; penalties for breach; and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Belgium, please visit PLC Which lawyer? This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competitionhandbook.

This chapter considers how European competition law can affect outsourcing transactions, concentrating in particular on the effect of merger control rules and the prohibition of anti-competitive provisions in outsourcing agreements. This article is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to Outsourcing. For a full list of contents visit www.practicallaw.com/outsourcinghandbook

Competition law issues are raised in arbitrations with increasing regularity but it remains judicially undecided whether an arbitral tribunal has a duty, as opposed to a power, to raise and adjudicate competition law issues of its own motion.

In Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that a direct purchaser is not categorically excluded from bringing a Walker Process antitrust claim even if the direct purchaser does not have standing for declaratory relief against the patentee under patent law.  

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended that standard-setting organizations (SSOs) adopt clearer policies for the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) to minimize patent hold-up and litigation. The DOJ urged SSOs to consider six policy proposals that would help clarify typical standards commitments.

On 15 August 2011, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Competition staff indicated that it had no present intention of recommending that the FTC bring an enforcement action challenging as anti-competitive an "accountability programme" proposed by the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB)  for companies engaged in online behavioral advertising (OBA).  The CBBB would use this program to hold companies accountable for compliance with the "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioural Advertising" (the Principles), administered by the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) subsequent to being released by a coalition of industry associations in July 2009. 

On 3 May 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff released a report that found that the number of potential pay-for-delay pharmaceutical settlements had increased more than 60%, from 19 such settlements in fiscal year 2009 to 31 such settlements in fiscal year 2010. 

The US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that direct and indirect purchasers' class claims for damages arising from an alleged illegal price-fixing conspiracy by static random access memory manufacturers (SRAM) meet the domestic exception test of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). 

On 29 March 2010, a federal judge denied the motions of Cephalon and several generic drugmakers to dismiss federal antitrust claims alleging that Cephalon's reverse payment settlements with generic drugmakers anti-competitively delayed generic drug entry.  The court rejected a per se analysis and noted that the proper standard for evaluating reverse payment settlements is whether the settlements grant rights beyond the scope of the patents. 

On 15 February 2010, Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, gave a speech at the Institute of Competition Law New Frontiers of Antitrust Conference in Paris, France.  Varney's speech focused on the need for antitrust agencies around the world to work together to review international mergers and assess effective remedies.

On 17 November 2009, US President Barack Obama nominated Julie Brill and Edith Ramirez to fill the two vacancies on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) resulting from the spring 2008 resignation of former FTC Chairman Deborah P. Majoras and the expiration of Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour's term in September 2009.

On 10 June 2009, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report entitled "Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition" (Report) proposing ways to reduce prices paid by consumers for the biologic medicines increasingly used to treat cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and other diseases. According to the Report, the cost of biologics, a type of drug developed from tissue and microorganisms, can be reduced by effective competition from "follow-on biologics" (FOBs).

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that United States President Barack Obama designated Jon Leibowitz to serve as Chairman of the FTC in a White House Order dated 2 March 2009. Leibowitz has served as an FTC Commissioner since September 2004.

A speech by Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), given on 3 July 2008, shed light on recent merger enforcement actions and other Commission-led investigations, and may have implications for future antitrust investigations conducted by the FTC.

On 13 February 2008, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it has filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that Cephalon, Inc. (Cephalon) violated US federal antitrust laws by providing monetary payments to four drug companies (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Barr Laboratories) in exchange for delayed entry of generic versions of its branded medication, Provigil (a prescription medication that treats excessive sleepiness arising from sleep apnea, narcolepsy, or shift-work sleep disorder). The complaint seeks a judgment that Cephalon violated the US antitrust laws and it also requests a permanent injunction to prevent Cephalon from enforcing the terms of these agreements and from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Austria. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of Competition jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in China. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the EU. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Germany. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Israel. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Japan. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Romania. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Sweden. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Turkey. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Ukraine. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Austria. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the EU. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Norway. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the United States. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

This chapter offers a comparative examination of Canada's anti-cartel regime and that of the US, with a particular focus on each regime's criminal anti-cartel provisions, penalties on conviction, defences available to per se charges, exclusion for exports, private rights of action for violations of criminal anti-trust provisions, immunity/leniency programmes, and non-criminal enforcement in respect of agreements among competitors. This article is part of the PLC Competition and Cartel Leniency multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Argentina. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Finland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.  

A Q&A guide to competition law in Mexico. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in South Africa. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

China's influence on global mergers and acquisitions is steadily increasing. The introduction of the Anti-Monopoly Law on 1 August 2008 heralded a new era for merger control enforcement in the country. The article below provides an overview of merger review decisions made in China since the Anti-Monopoly Law took effect, and highlights (with case studies where relevant) some of the key issues that parties to a transaction need to consider when concluding an international deal. This article is part of the PLC Competition and Cartel Leniency multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.