lcd panel 1.1 billion settlement made in china

NEW YORK– Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced a $571 million multi-state settlement with three major technology corporations charged with illegally conspiring to boost prices for liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops. As part of the agreement reached with AU Optronics Corporation, LG Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, and affiliated entities of each corporation, New York State taxpayers are expected to receive upwards of $10 million through recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to restitution to compensate consumers affected by the scheme.

The corporate defendants in the latest round of settlements agreed to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims brought on behalf of consumers, government entities, and other public entities by a multistate group of eight Attorneys General and private class action attorneys. Separately, two of the defendants agreed to pay $27.5 million in fines and penalties to the States. The defendants also agreed to engage in antitrust compliance programs.

Together with seven earlier settlements with other defendants reached by Attorney General Schneiderman in December 2011, total settlement payments will top $1.1 billion dollars.

New York"s complaint alleged that from 1999 to 2006 Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese manufacturers of thin film transistor ("TFT") LCD panels, together with their U.S. affiliates, engineered a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels, and sold into New York millions of TFT-LCD panels at prices fixed by the cartel. TFT-LCD screens are essential components of televisions, computer monitors, and laptop screens. Substantially all TFT-LCD products sold in New York during the conspiracy period were sold at high prices illegally fixed by the conspiracy.

Following court approval of the settlements, at least $692 million will be available for partial refunds to compensate consumers residing in New York and 23 other States and the District of Columbia who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels during the period beginning January 1, 1999 and continuing through December 31, 2006. Information on how consumers can claim partial refunds, once the Court has approved the settlements, as well as other information about the settlements and the court approval process, is available at www . lcdclass . com

These settlements conclude Attorney General Schneiderman"s lawsuit against alleged LCD cartel participants. Attorney General Schneiderman expressed his gratitude to the New York State Office of General Services, New York"s public procurement agency, for its important assistance in the case.

Costco customers look at a display of LCD HDTV televisions in San Francisco, California. Three major Asian manufacturers have agreed to pay fines of $571 million to US states as part of the ongoing case on price-fixing of LCD displays for electronic devices, officials said Thursday.

Three major Asian manufacturers have agreed to pay fines of $571 million to US states as part of the ongoing case on price-fixing of LCD displays for electronic devices, officials said Thursday.

The settlements were reach with Japan"s Toshiba Corporation, AU Optronics of Taiwan and LG of South Korea, according to the New York state attorney general"s office.

The case is part of a long-running probe in the United States over a scheme to boost prices for liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops.

New York is among eight states sharing in the settlement and will get some $10 million through recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to restitution to consumers.

The companies in the latest round of settlements agreed to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims and two firms will pay $27.5 million in fines and penalties to the states.

Rival LCD makers met in secret in karaoke bars, tea rooms, and hotel conference rooms in Taiwan to set prices rather than letting market forces prevail, according to US officials.

When all settlements are in place, officials said consumers in 24 states and the US city of Washington will be eligible for compensation totaling $692 million.

In the late 1990s, there were what were called "Crystal Meetings". Top executives from ten Asian-based tech companies met in hotels and bars in Taiwan to set the price of LCD screens. In other words, price-fixing.

Customers and businesses who purchased LCD screens from ten manufacturers, including Samsung, Sharp and Toshiba between 1999 and 2006 can file a claim online at LCDClass.com. They agreed to pay a multi-state settlement of $1.1 billion.

Flanagan, a Charlotte resident, is North Carolina"s lead plaintiff in the case. She purchased a Macintosh desktop computer with an LCD screen in November 2001 for more than $2,200 dollars. The screen was traced back to one of the ten companies. She was represented by Charlotte lawyer James Wyatt, since the lawsuit was first filed in 2007.

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s Sharp Corp, a leading supplier of displays to Apple Inc, said Thursday it will form a $2.9 billion alliance with state-owned China Electronics Corp that includes an agreement by Sharp to license its advanced power-saving IGZO screen technology.

The new venture will be 92 percent owned by China Electronics, also known as CEC, which supplies equipment to China’s military. The venture will set up a an LCD plant with the goal of mass-producing panel displays for televisions, notebook PCs and tablets in 2015.

IGZO screens boast power consumption as low as a tenth of conventional LCDs, high resolutions and faster reaction speeds. While an agreement to license the technology to a Chinese military-linked state company may raise eyebrows, Sharp does not exclusively own the technology, only being the first to commercialize it.

The agreement, which is a revised version of one agreed to with CEC in 2009, may instead represent a retreat by the Chinese company to win access to Sharp’s more advanced tenth-generation LCD manufacturing techniques. CEC is planning to build an 8.5 generation facility.

Sharp is the only panel maker in the world to have built a tenth generation factory able to fabricate liquid crystal sandwiched in glass sheets thinner than a credit card that are 3.13 meters long by 2.88 meters wide. Smaller 8.5 generation sheets measure 2.2 meters by 2.5 meters.

CEC in November blamed deteriorating ties between Japan and China over their territorial spat in the East China Sea for shelving cooperation with Sharp to build a tenth-generation facility. Sharp, which sold a stake in its advanced LCD plant to Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry last year, says no such agreement ever existed.

The new joint-venture will represent a total investment of $2.9 billion for Sharp, which was rescued in October by its banks. To rebuild its business, Sharp has also sought closer ties to Samsung Electronics, selling it a 3 percent stake for $103 million and pledging to supply it with small display screens.

SEOUL (Reuters) - Chinese flat screen makers, once dismissed as second-class players in the global LCD market, are drawing envious looks from big names such as LG Display Co Ltd and Samsung.A man walks out of the headquarters of LG Display in Seoul, October 20, 2011. REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak

While the Korean giants were busy developing next-generation organic light emitting diode (OLED) TVs, little-known Chinese companies have started selling a type of display that are sharper than the standard LCD and cheaper than OLED.

Until last year, the UHD market had been almost non-existent, with just 33,000 sets sold in the 200 million-unit LCD TV market. Since then, shipments have soared around 20-fold, thanks to China, data from research firm IHS shows.

But its slow introduction into the market and austere prices have thrown open a window of opportunity for UHD makers, in this case Chinese companies like BOE Technology Group Co Ltd and TCL Corp’s LCD unit CSOT.

By comparison, Japanese flat-screen pioneer Sharp Corp reported a razor-thin 0.5 percent margin. LG Display, the world’s No.1 LCD maker, posted a 5.6 percent margin.

Samsung Display, a unit of Samsung Electronics, had a margin of 13 percent, the biggest in the industry. But excluding its fledging OLED business, its LCD margin is between 3 and 7 percent, according to a Bernstein forecast.

“Even with some expansion of the Chinese panel suppliers we do expect Samsung and LG Display to stay dominant and continue production in LCD,” said Sweta Dash, director at IHS.

While Samsung and LG Display are investing billions of dollars in OLED this year, the two giants are also broadening their product lineups to include more popular 50 to 60-inch UHD models.

BOE Technology is now planning to raise 46 billion yuan ($7.5 billion) in the biggest Chinese equity offering this year, to build panel production lines and increase its stake in its LCD venture BOE Display Technology.

The TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigationclass-action lawsuit regarding the worldwide conspiracy to coordinate the prices of Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used to make laptop computers, computer monitors and televisions, between 1999 and 2006. In March 2010, Judge Susan Illston certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities that directly and indirectly purchased TFT-LCDs – for panel purchasers and purchasers of TFT-LCD integrated products; the litigation was followed by multiple suits.

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions, laptop and computer monitors, mobile phones, personal digital assistants, semiconductors and other devices;

In mid-2006, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division requested FBI assistance in investigating LCD price-fixing. In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers.

The companies involved, which later became the Defendants, were Taiwanese companies AU Optronics (AUO), Chi Mei, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Chunghwa), and HannStar; Korean companies LG Display and Samsung; and Japanese companies Hitachi, Sharp and Toshiba.cartel which took place between January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006, and which was designed to illegally reduce competition and thus inflate prices for LCD panels. The companies exchanged information on future production planning, capacity use, pricing and other commercial conditions.European Commission concluded that the companies were aware they were violating competition rules, and took steps to conceal the venue and results of the meetings; a document by the conspirators requested everybody involved "to take care of security/confidentiality matters and to limit written communication".

Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracy, as direct victims of the cartel, were some of the largest computer, television and cellular telephone manufacturers in the world. These direct action plaintiffs included AT&T Mobility, Best Buy,Costco Wholesale Corporation, Good Guys, Kmart Corp, Motorola Mobility, Newegg, Sears, and Target Corp.Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to prevent Defendants from violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), as well as (b) 23 separate state-wide classes based on each state"s antitrust/consumer protection class action law.

In November 2008, LG, Chunghwa, Hitachi, Epson, and Chi Mei pleaded guilty to criminal charges of fixing prices of TFT-LCD panels sold in the U.S. and agreed to pay criminal fines (see chart).

The South Korea Fair Trade Commission launched legal proceedings as well. It concluded that the companies involved met more than once a month and more than 200 times from September 2001 to December 2006, and imposed fines on the LCD manufacturers.

Sharp Corp. pleaded guilty to three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Motorola Inc., and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine,

In South Korea, regulators imposed the largest fine the country had ever imposed in an international cartel case, and fined Samsung Electronics and LG Display ₩92.29 billion and ₩65.52 billion, respectively. AU Optronics was fined ₩28.53 billion, Chimmei Innolux ₩1.55 billion, Chungwa ₩290 million and HannStar ₩870 million.

Seven executives from Japanese and South Korean LCD companies were indicted in the U.S. Four were charged with participating as co-conspirators in the conspiracy and sentenced to prison terms – including LG"s Vice President of Monitor Sales, Chunghwa"s chairman, its chief executive officer, and its Vice President of LCD Sales – for "participating in meetings, conversations and communications in Taiwan, South Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD panels; agreeing during these meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels at certain predetermined levels; issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached; exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices; and authorizing, ordering and consenting to the participation of subordinate employees in the conspiracy."

On December 8, 2010, the European Commission announced it had fined six of the LCD companies involved in a total of €648 million (Samsung Electronics received full immunity under the commission"s 2002 Leniency Notice) – LG Display, AU Optronics, Chimei, Chunghwa Picture and HannStar Display Corporation.

On July 3, 2012, a U.S. federal jury ruled that the remaining defendant, Toshiba Corporation, which denied any wrongdoing, participated in the conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCDs and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff class. Following the trial, Toshiba agreed to resolve the case by paying the class $30 million.

On March 29, 2013, Judge Susan Illston issued final approval of the settlements agreements totaling $1.1 billion for the indirect purchaser’ class. The settling companies also agreed to establish antitrust compliance programs and to help prosecute other defendants, and cooperate with the Justice Department"s continuing investigation.

The beleaguered real estate giant presented instead what it called “preliminary restructuring principles” for its offshore debt, in an exchange filing late Friday. The stakes are high, with some $20 billion in dollar bonds among total liabilities of about $300 billion. Any restructuring could be among China’s biggest ever.

In 2018, Lumber Liquidators was ordered to pay a $36 million settlement as a result of the class action lawsuit. And on Tuesday, the company agreed to pay a $33 million penalty to settle federal charges that it misled its investors about the flooring. Reuters reports:

The Justice Department settlement includes a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the government agreed not to prosecute Lumber Liquidators for securities fraud so long as the company upgrades oversight and cooperates with its ongoing probe for three years. … The amount the company will pay represents Lumber Liquidator’s net profits from the sale of 100 percent of its Chinese laminate from January through May 2015, U.S Attorney’s office said.

Thousands of people lost their homes and suffered health problems from Chinese-made drywall, leading to a $1 billion settlement in 2015. At least 1,000 dogs died from poisonous treats imported from China, leading chains like Petco and Petsmart to stop selling Chinese-made treats. An independent investigation in 2018 found that nearly one in three toys from Chinacontain heavy metals, while one in 10 contain lead.

BOE will invest 29 billion yuan ($4 billion) in the 600,000 sq. meter factory, according to Sunday"s announcement, with an eye toward expanding into markets for new technologies, such as panels for virtual reality (VR) devices, and a new type of high-end panel called mini-LED.

The globalized, and sometimes duplicative, nature of these investigations correspondingly has resulted in higher cumulative penalties.  For example, in the LIBOR matter, which is considered to be far from complete, the penalties to date total more than $2.7 billion in just two jurisdictions, including the European Commission’s largest fine ever of €1.71 billion ($2.3 billion).  Similarly, almost $3 billion in total fines have been imposed in the TFT LCD investigations alone—and further investigation (Brazil) into that conduct was launched just this year.  And in the massive auto parts investigation, fines already exceed $2.366 billion, of which nearly $1 billion has been imposed for just one part—wire harnesses—with many more fines expected.  Indeed, on the date of this alert, EU Competition Commissioner Almunia confirmed that more fines will follow in 2014.

Domestic enforcement also continues apace across the globe.  In the United States, the DOJ’s investigation into collusion in mortgage foreclosure auctions and tax lien auctions continues to expand—over 70 individuals have been caught in these investigations, which are expected to continue in 2014.  Canada’s investigation into local gasoline price fixing has netted over 40 corporate and individual pleas.  Brazil has investigated collusion in its domestic gasoline sector, imposing fines on 20 companies and individuals.  In Germany, significant sanctions were imposed in connection with agreements not to compete among flour mills, as well as for information exchanges in the pharmaceutical and confectionary industries.  And in Spain, more than 15 companies were sanctioned over €44 million ($58.5 million) for a market allocation conspiracy among envelope manufacturers lasting more than 30 years.  Turkey also imposed record domestic fines this year.  In March, Turkey’s Competition Authority issued fines of 1.1 billion Turkish lira ($620 million) against 12 of the country’s banks for colluding over interest rates.  One bank received a 213 million lira ($102 million) penalty—the largest fine ever imposed on a single entity in Turkey.  And South Africa likewise imposed its largest ever collective fine—approximately $140 million—against 15 construction companies charged with bid rigging in connection with the 2010 World Cup.

Finally, 2013 involved significant appellate scrutiny of individual convictions.  The Second Circuit reversed the convictions of three executives in the Municipal Bonds investigation because the indictment failed to allege a conspiratorial act within the statute of limitations.  The Ninth Circuit is reviewing the convictions of two companies and three individuals in the LCD investigation.  After oral argument, the Court released all three executives on bail, which suggests the convictions may not be sustained.

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division secured approximately $1.02 billion in criminal fines during FY 2013, surpassing one billion dollars in total recoveries for the second year in a row, and just the third time ever (1999).[1]  Over 80% of that total resulted from the $790 million in fines paid by auto parts manufacturers in the Division’s ongoing investigation into collusion in the auto parts industry, discussed in more detail below.[2]

To date, 23 companies and 26 executives have been charged as a part of the auto parts investigation.  All 23 companies have either pleaded guilty or have agreed to plead guilty and have collectively agreed to pay more than $1.8 billion in criminal fines.  Of the 26 executives, 20 have been sentenced to serve time in U.S. prisons or have entered into plea agreements that include significant prison sentences.[19]  We do not believe this marks the end of the auto parts matter, and expect the DOJ will announce additional pleas and indictments in 2014.

The DOJ’s investigation of LIBOR and other benchmark interest rates is sure to continue.  In announcing the DOJ’s settlement with Rabobank, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division warned, “[O]ther banks should pay attention: our investigation is far from over.”

The Second Circuit reversed.  It held that the employers’ continuous payment of interest “does not raise the underlying concern of concerted action, and therefore is not a continuous action that prolongs the life of the conspiracy.”[30]  Therefore, the government failed to allege the defendants committed overt acts of conspiracy within the limitations period.[31]  The Court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the matter to the district court for dismissal of the indictment.[32]  On December 20, 2013, the Second Circuit granted the DOJ’s motion to extend by 30 days the time to petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc to January 22, 2014.  The DOJ sought the additional time because “[t]he Government is in the process of conferring internally and with the Office of the Solicitor General concerning the issue of petitioning for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc.”[33]

As noted in our previous updates, the TFT-LCD investigation has been a hallmark prosecution for the Division.  Eight companies have been sentenced to pay criminal fines totaling $1.39 billion and 13 executives were sentenced to serve prison terms ranging from 6 to 36 months.[34]

This year saw two developments in the DOJ’s case against Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corporation, its U.S. subsidiary AU Optronics Corporation America, and certain employees.  The companies were only the second corporate defendants in an international cartel case to go to trial in more than a decade and were ultimately convicted, along with three executives.  On October 11, after a two-and-a-half week trial, a jury acquitted AU Optronics employee Borlong (“Richard”) Bai, who was in charge of the company’s notebook sales division, of charges that he had participated in a conspiracy to set the prices of certain TFT-LCD panels used in monitors, notebooks, and televisions.[35]  Mr. Bai is the third AU Optronics executive to be acquitted.

As discussed in more detail in our 2013 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, the appeal raises a number of distinct challenges to the DOJ’s prosecution.  The core of the appeal involves issues related to what the AU Optronics defendants argue is the essentially foreign nature of the TFT-LCD conduct—an assertion that the DOJ hotly contested.  Accordingly, the defendants argued that the convictions should be reversed because the government failed to prove a rule of reason case (rather than a per se case), contending that the foreign nature of the conduct makes the per se rule inapplicable.  The defendants also argue that the indictment was deficient because it failed to plead the requirements of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (“FTAIA”)—an issue that was the focus of questioning of all parties at the Ninth Circuit argument.  Defendants further argue that the government failed to prove the elements of the FTAIA and that the jury was not properly instructed as to the intent element of an antitrust violation under the FTAIA.  Finally, the defendants argued that the DOJ failed to prove venue in the Northern District of California.[36]

As covered in our 2013 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, Brazil’s National Competition Authority targeted a number of matters involving overseas conduct in 2013, including investigations related to air cargo, marine hose, TFT-LCD and Cathode Ray Tubes (“CRTs”).  Brazilian authorities also applied new settlement procedures for the first time.[74]

Also in October, CADE reached a fifth settlement in its investigation of collusion with respect to marine hoses.  The Brazilian authorities charged manufacturers of marine hoses with using a price list to allocate global market share.  The latest participant to settle, Parker ITR, agreed to pay BRL 5.1 million ($2.1 million).

CADE applied its new settlement guidelines for the first time in December, reaching a BRL 1.5 million ($637,000) deal with Swiss robotics conglomerate ABB Ltd. after the company admitted to participating in a power cable cartel.[77]  Under the new procedures adopted in March, ABB had to admit to wrongdoing and facilitate CADE’s investigation in order to obtain a lower settlement.

In December, CADE announced investigations of alleged price fixing of large-sized TFT-LCD panels and of CRTs.  This investigation follows on similar investigations in the U.S., the E.U., Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.

The Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (“SIC”) imposed a record fine of COP 30 billion ($16 million) on six people and three companies for colluding to win government contracts.[83]  Members of the Colombian conglomerate Nule Group allegedly simulated competition and manipulated selection criteria in order to win public contracts from the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare.  The SIC applied identical penalties of COP 5.2 billion ($2.8 million) to two companies as well as three company executives—cousins Manuel, Miguel, and Guido Nule.  This marks the first time the authority has fined natural persons as market actors, which allowed the SIC to apply fines double what would otherwise be the maximum penalty for individuals.

The SIC also opened an investigation of five cement manufacturers and 14 of their employees over allegations of price fixing and market division.[84]  Targeted companies include Mexico-based Cemex and Cementos Argos, one of the largest cement producers in South America.  Should the investigation result in charges, the companies could face fines up to COP 59 billion ($30 million).

The European Commission (“EC” or “Commission”) has followed its bumper 2012 year (2012 Criminal Antitrust Update) with another year of vigorous antitrust enforcement.  2013 has seen the Commission impose fines amounting to over €2.1 billion ($2.8 billion) in seven separate cases covering a wide range of industries.

* *  For the purposes of calculating the Total Fines Levied, a decision includes any investigation conducted under Article 101 TFEU that resulted in a fine.  As per the methodology used by the Commission, such figures do not take into account subsequent Court of Justice judgments adjusting imposed fines.

The Commission followed these enforcement efforts with a very active second half of the year, which saw four more decisions, including the imposition of fines totaling €1.71 billion in the LIBOR investigation.[90]  With additional fines in the shrimping industry[91] and a second decision in the pharmaceutical sector,[92] 2013 has proved to be one of the most far-reaching and impactful years in the history of EU antitrust enforcement.

Furthermore, throughout 2013 the EC has continued to use the negotiated settlement procedure introduced in 2008, reaching its seventh, eighth, and ninth settlements—wire harnesses, EURIBOR, and Yen LIBOR, respectively.

In December, the Commission issued the largest fine in the Commission’s history amounting to €1.71 billion ($2.3 billion) against eight international financial institutions in connection with manipulation of interest rate benchmarks.[93]  According to the Commission, the financial institutions colluded to manipulate the LIBOR and EURIBOR benchmarks by which the value of interest rate derivatives (e.g., forward rate agreements, swaps, futures, options) are calculated. Four of these institutions participated in conduct relating to interest rate derivatives denominated in euro.  Six of them participated in one or more bilateral arrangements relating to interest rate derivatives denominated in Japanese yen.  Commission Vice-President Almunia said that the fines imposed would send a clear message that the Commission is determined to fight and sanction collusion in the financial sector.[94]

Both decisions were adopted under the Commission’s settlement procedure (the eighth and ninth settlement decisions since the introduction of the settlement procedure in 2008).  Almunia, in announcing the fines, stated that these are two of the swiftest settlements that the Commission has concluded since the introduction of the settlement procedure in 2008.  Four of the parties involved in the investigation of these matters (Credit Agricole, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and ICAP) did not settle and the Commission’s investigation will continue against these companies.[95]  The move has led some commentators to question the efficiency of the so-called ‘hybrid-settlement’ process—in which some, but not all, suspects settle.[96]  Nonetheless, the Commissioner has indicated that the Commission is “determined to pursue all those who may have been involved” in these matters and to ensure that they “receive the adequate sanction.”[97]

UBS received full immunity for reporting its conduct thereby avoiding a fine of approximately €2.5 billion ($3.3 billion).  Citigroup received immunity for one of the infringements, thereby avoiding a fine of approximately €55 million ($74.7 million).  The Commission has opened proceedings against the broker, ICAP.

2013 has seen further fruits from the Commission’s intensive scrutiny of the pharmaceutical sector following its 2009 sector inquiry into delayed market entry of cheaper generic drugs.[101]  In 2013, the Commission made two separate decisions fining pharmaceutical manufacturers for engaging in pay-for-delay tactics to prevent or delay generic market entrants.

In July, in Commission v. Aalberts Industries NV & Others, the Court of Justice delivered one of its most important rulings in recent years.  That appeal concerned a 2011 ruling by the General Court regarding the Dutch company Aalberts.  In 2011, the General Court had annulled the fine imposed on Aalberts for allegedly fixing prices, exchanging commercial information, and allocating markets in the sector for copper fittings between June 2003 and April 2004 on the grounds that, although the company’s subsidiaries participated in meetings during which other companies colluded to restrict competition, there was not enough information on the file to justify the imposition of a fine on the parent company on a theory of imputed liability.  The Court of Justice upheld the ruling by the General Court in its entirety.[111]  The decision is therefore noteworthy as because it reduces the ability of the European Commission to impose fines on parent companies for actions undertaken by their subsidiaries.

Legislative developments in 2013 concerning cartel enforcement have focused on the hotly debated draft Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions to facilitate private actions at a national level against infringers of EU competition law.[117]  The legislation aims at harmonizing national regimes and, if adopted, will remove obstacles created by divergences between national laws and make it easier to bring private claims against antitrust infringers in EU Member State courts.  Further, and to avoid undermining the EC’s Leniency Programme, the draft Directive proposes safeguards to protect leniency applications and settling parties against the disclosure of key submissions made to antitrust authorities.[118]  In particular, the draft Directive provides that leniency statements and settlement submissions cannot be subject to an order for disclosure.  It also provides various safeguards limiting disclosure of other documents in the Commission’s file. For more details on the Commission’s proposal, see our European Commission Takes First Steps Towards EU Antitrust Damages Claims Client Alert.

The draft Directive faced some initial difficulties, as various committees tussled over their role in the legislative process.[119]  However, in early December the Council of the European Union adopted its general approach on the Commission’s proposal, following the compromise proposal put forward by the European Parliament.  The proposal is broadly the same as the draft proposed by the Commission, with two main differences highlighted by the Council.  First, the compromise proposal is less prescriptive as to the methods for Member States to secure protection against disclosure of documents that have been obtained through access to the file.  Importantly, the compromise proposal retains absolute protection from disclosure for leniency statements and settlement submissions.  Second, and potentially even more significant, the compromise proposal amends the EC’s proposed protections for immunity applicants.

The Commission has also been active in pursuing new investigations, with several unannounced inspections taking place during the year.  In addition to inspections conducted in the first half of the year at companies’ premises in the sugar,[120] oil,[121] biofuel,[122] cargo train transport,[123] and telecommunication sectors,[124] the Commission has conducted further raids in relation to possible online sales restrictions in consumer electronic products.  The most recent inspection was carried out by the Commission in December at the premises of a number of companies active in the manufacture, distribution, and retail sale of consumer electronic products and small domestic appliances.  The Commission is concerned that these companies may have colluded to restrict the online sales of these products.[125]

In 2013, the Commission issued Statements of Objections or opened formal antitrust proceedings in relation to smart card chips,[126] container liner shipping,[127] and the financial sector.[128]  In April, the EC informed a number of suppliers of smart card chips of its intent to investigate whether certain chip suppliers may have coordinated in order to keep prices artificially high.  After initially agreeing to explore the possibility of a settlement with the companies involved, the Commission discontinued talks due to lack of progress.[129]

As discussed in our 2013 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, the EC continues its scrutiny of the financial sector with its investigation into the Credit Default Swaps (“CDS”) market and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”), an association of financial institutions involved in over-the-counter trading of derivatives.  In July the EC issued a Statement of Objections to 13 of the world’s largest investment banks including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS, as well as ISDA and data service provider Markit.[131] Additionally, in October Competition Commission Vice-President Almunia announced that the EC was looking into alleged manipulation in the €5 trillion-a-day (approximately $8.2 trillion-a-day) foreign exchange market.[132]

Additionally, changes enacted at the national level in areas such as leniency, de minimisthresholds, and information gathering, have further bolstered the effectiveness of the European Competition Network (“ECN”).  In December 2013, the ECN itself published a set of ECN Recommendations on key investigative and decision-making powers for competition authorities in the Network, ranging from inspection powers, requests for information, priority setting, and interim measures to commitments and structural remedies.[136]  During 2013, new or revised guidance on leniency or penalties was published by Malta (draft leniency guidance),[137] Germany (penalties guidance),[138] Portugal (penalties guidance),[139] Hungary (leniency guidance),[140] and the UK (leniency guidance).[141]

The amended Belgian Competition Law was adopted in April 2013 and reformed the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) into a fully independent single enforcement body with three regulatory organs and an independent budget.  The new BCA commenced operations in late August and in November submitted its first draft decision in a case involving restrictive practices on the part of Electrabel (GDF Suez) in the electricity sector.[143]  All procedures are now designed to be significantly shortened—the investigatory phase is limited to two years and the decision-making phase to one year.  In addition, the BCA will have more powers, including the power to negotiate and accept settlements during the investigatory phase.[144]

After more than a year of debate and criticism from different sources, including the European Commission, the Spanish parliament created a new “super-regulator,” the National Commission for Markets and Competition (“CNMC”).[151]  The CNMC, which started functioning on October 7, 2013, brings together the Spanish National Competition Authority (“CNC”) and seven sectoral regulators (including, among others, those responsible for stock exchanges, telecommunications and energy sectors) into one new institution led by a Board of 10 members.  The CNMC has four sector-specific investigatory teams: Competition, Telecommunications and Audiovisual, Energy, and Transport and Post.  The new Authority will be obliged to publish all decisions and orders once notified, with its decisions being subject to appeal before the Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the National High Court (“Audiencia Nacional”).  The formation of the CNMC is expected to bring annual savings of €28 million ($37 million), as well as better oversight and supervision.

On August 30, 2013 (prior to the establishment of the new Belgian Competition Authority), the Belgian Competition Council found that all three large Belgian cement producers, their trade association, and the National Centre for Technical and Scientific Research for the Cement Industry had infringed Article 101 TFEU and the national equivalent by conspiring to delay the adoption of an industry standard regarding the use of a particular ingredient in ready-mix concrete.[155]  The Council imposed a fine of €14.7 million ($20 million), its third largest fine.

In January 2013, the FCO imposed fines of approximately €60 million ($79.8 million) on 11 confectionary manufacturers and their distributors for several infringements.[161]  The infringements mainly concerned price-fixing agreements and information exchange for chocolate products following price increases for raw materials such as milk and cacao.  Mars GmbH received full immunity from fines under the FCO’s leniency program, and the majority of the others involved in the infringements settled.

In July, the FCO imposed fines on rail manufacturers in two separate cases.[165]  The first fine of €10 million ($13.3 million) concerned the company Moravia Steel and marked the end of the procedure against several rail manufacturers which were engaged in bid rigging processes concerning supplies to Germany’s main railroad operator Deutsche Bahn.  In total, participants in the bid rigging were fined €134.5 million ($178.9 million).  The procedure against Moravia Steel was concluded by way of a settlement agreement.  Just two weeks later, the FCO fined eight rail manufacturers an aggregate amount of €97.6 million ($129.9 million) for bid rigging concerning rails for regional, local and industrial transportation railways.  The investigation into the rail manufacturing sector in Germany was triggered by a leniency application by the Austrian company Voestalpine AG.

On the private enforcement side, efforts to bring “class action style” claims for damages in Germany suffered a setback due to a December judgment delivered by the Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf.[170]  The Court dismissed a claim worth €131 million ($174 million) brought by the Cartel Claim Damages (“CDC”) company against six members of an alleged cement cartel.  Before launching the action for damages, CDC acquired individual claims from more than two dozen cement purchasers.  Although the Court held the claim to be admissible in a 2009 interim judgment, it dismissed the action in December.  The court held that the assignment of claims for a contingency fee while still retaining a right to a percentage of the damages was invalid under German law.[171]  Additionally, the Court found that the assignment was contrary to public policy as the CDC, a corporate vehicle established for the purpose of pursuing this action, did not have sufficient funds to compensate the defendants’ statutory legal fees in case the action was dismissed and therefore provided an inappropriate and unjustified risk for the defendants and inappropriate shield for the original purchasers.  However, because the Court’s focus was on the nature of the corporate vehicle bringing the claims, the possibility for future collective actions in Germany is not yet extinguished.

Greece continued to address domestic acts of collusion in 2013.  The Hellenic Competition Commission (“HCC”) imposed a number of fines in the concrete production market[172] and in the driving school market.[173]  Further, in September 2013, the HCC imposed a fine of €18.4 million ($24.5 million) on the Greek Construction Association for limitation of construction in the area of Attiki through its decisions/recommendations to its members from 2002 to 2009, and therefore for indirect price fixing.[174]  Finally, in October 2013, the HCC issued infringement decisions against professional associations of foreign language school owners for price fixing and other restrictions in the exercise of professional activities of their members.[175]  According to the decisions, the associations sought to fix the fees charged to students by their members and/or to coordinate other important parameters of their members’ commercial activity.  For those infringements, the HCC imposed fines totaling €850,000 ($1.1 million).

Despite dropping an investigation into the construction industry,[179] the newly formed ACM imposed its first fines on magazine-pack suppliers for market sharing activities.[180]  Thirteen undertakings were found to have entered into territorial and customer allocation arrangements as well as anticompetitive information exchanges and were fined in total more than €6 million ($8 million).  Finally, the ACM also concluded an investigation into possible unlawful activities in the mobile operator sector.[181]  The ACM did not find direct evidence of illegal behavior.  However, it found that the common practice of public statements concerning, for example, future price increases or other supply conditions that are not yet finalized, may constitute collusive behavior.  Therefore, the three major Dutch mobile operators gave commitments to refrain from making such statements in public.

2013 was a particularly active year in Swiss antitrust enforcement.  The Swiss Competition Commission (“WEKO”) opened several investigations in industries ranging from tunnel cleaning companies,[187] road construction and civil engineering (which was extended in scope during the course of 2013),[188] car retailing,[189] string instruments,[190] to currency exchange rates.[191]  Additionally, WEKO imposed fines of CHF 16.5 million ($16.9 million) on book distributors for limiting the distribution of books written in French.[192]  Several wholesalers operated a network of exclusivity agreements that made parallel imports of French books nearly impossible between 2005 and 2011.  In June, WEKO imposed fines of CHF 500,000 ($513,000) against 12 construction companies for bid rigging activities in approximately 30 tender procedures in the Zurich region.[193]  The procedure was triggered by means of dawn raids, and one organization was able to avoid a fine even after the dawn raids had taken place due to its cooperation and admission of infringement.  Finally, in December 2013, WEKO dropped an investigation in the food manufacturing and food retailing industries.[194]  The alleged behavior concerned agreements not to pass on price advantages due to currency exchange fluctuations downstream in the distribution chain.  The investigation did not, however, reveal sufficient evidence of horizontal or vertical anticompetitive agreements in that regard.

2013 was a good year for the UK agencies in terms of antitrust enforcement, with the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) issuing eight infringement decisions—its highest number of such decisions in a single year (although given the nature and size of the cases, the fines imposed were not high in comparison to other years).  In March,the OFT reached settlements with a major automaker and four of its commercial vehicle dealers (Northside, Cicely, Road Range, and Enza), and issued five infringement decisions regarding collusive practices in breach of competition law.  The companies admitted to having colluded to allocate markets, coordinate prices, and exchange commercially sensitive information, and agreed to pay a total of £2.8 million ($4.6 million) in fines.[195]

As reported in our 2013 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, in early 2013, the NDRC fined six companies a total of CNY 353 million ($56.7 million) for colluding to fix prices of liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs) sold in China over a five-year period.  These fines constituted the NDRC’s first action for extraterritorial conduct and set a record for antitrust penalties in China.  In addition to the fines, the penalized companies promised to strictly observe Chinese laws, committed to fairly supply Chinese TV markets with new technologies, and agreed to extend LCD warranties in China from 18 months to 36 months.[207]

The CCI’s zealous investigation and prosecution efforts did not go unnoticed by the courts in 2013.  Indeed, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (“CAT”) significantly reduced fines assessed by the CCI in two separate instances.  In October 2013, the CAT reduced the fines assessed by the CCI against three manufacturers of aluminum phosphide tablets by 90% to approximately Rs 100 million ($1.62 million), holding that the CCI generally should base penalties on the “relevant turnover” of the affected product rather than on the total sales of the company.[215]  The CAT in April 2013 similarly reduced by more than 90% the fines assessed by the CCI against a group of explosives manufacturers in India for bid rigging.[216]  These decisions have increased speculation that the pending appeal to the CAT by 11 cement manufacturers and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association from a record fine of approximately Rs 6,307 billion ($1.1 billion) in 2012  may also result in a substantial reduction of the penalty imposed by the CCI.

In July, Indonesia’s Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (“KPPU”) fined three construction companies over Rp 15 billion ($1.25 million) for conspiring among themselves and with the construction selection committee to rig bids for a major construction project.[217]

This was a banner year for JFTC fines and sanctions.  The JFTC collected fines from participants in price-fixing investigations in three separate industries.  In March, the JFTC fined three ball bearing manufacturers, NTN Corp., NSK Ltd., and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., a total of ¥13.4 billion ($132 million).[223]  The ball bearings matter was the first international cartel referred for criminal prosecutions in Japan.  In June, the JFTC fined 10 sugar syrup manufacturers a total of ¥2.5 billion ($24.8 million).[224]  And in July, the JFTC fined seven manufacturers of starch adhesives a total of ¥255 million ($2.5 million).[225]

The JFTC also collected fines from participants in bid-rigging schemes in two separate industries.  In March, the JFTC fined two automotive lamp manufacturers a total of ¥4.7 billion ($46.5 million),[226] and in December, the JFTC fined 36 six engineering companies a total of ¥746 million ($7.1 million).[227]

In total, through a variety of high-impact investigations, the JFTC collected surcharges totaling ¥22 billion ($211 million), matching the significant fine level reached in 2012.[228]

After assessing a record-breaking KRW 916.2 billion ($855 million) in total fines during 2012, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) continued its aggressive enforcement efforts under newly-appointed Chairman Noh Dae-Lae.[242]

In early 2013, as covered in our 2013 Mid-Year Criminal Antitrust Update, the KFTC imposed large penalties in the glass and insurance industries.  In July, the KFTC assessed a collective fine of KRW 116 billion ($104.3 million) against six auto manufacturers—Hyundai Motor Co., Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicle Co., Daimler Trucks Korea Ltd., Scania Korea Ltd., and MAN Truck & Bus Korea Ltd.—for fixing prices of trucks, tractors, and commercial vehicles.[243]  The companies allegedly exchanged information regularly from 2002 to 2011 in order to manipulate prices.  Hyundai was assessed the largest fine, KRW 71.1 billion ($67 million), while Scania was hit with the second largest penalty of KRW 17.6 billion ($16.1 million).

In September, the KFTC imposed fines totaling KRW 111.5 billion ($105 million) against construction companies including the engineering branches of Samsung, Hyundai, and Daewoo for bid-rigging related to a 2008-2009 government river engineering project.  At the same time, 22 indictments were issued for 22 individuals employed by those companies through the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s office.  Among those charged were the CEOs of Hyundai Engineering & Construction and Daewoo Engineering & Construction.  The collusion, which allegedly involved prearranging the winners of contracts for the project, is said to have increased construction costs by KRW 3.8 trillion ($3.6 billion).[244]

In October, after a brief two-month investigation, the KFTC imposed a KRW 6.35 billion ($6 million) fine against eight companies for arranging the winners of contracts to supply electricity cables to nuclear power plants in 2004-2005, 2008, and 2010.  In addition, the KFTC referred six of the companies to prosecutors for potential indictment.[245]

In late December, the KFTC announced its first fines in the global auto parts investigations, imposing fines totaling KRW 114.6 billion ($108 million)against Denso Corporation, Bosch, and Continental AG for the price fixing of instrument panels and wipers sold to Hyundai and its affiliate Kia Motors.  In announcing the fines, Shin Dong-kwon, Head of the Cartel Investigation Bureau at the KFTC, confirmed the close global coordination that is at the core of the auto parts matters, “We collaborated with antitrust regulators from the US and the EU to crack down on price collusion among auto parts makers.  And we will closely monitor international cartels targeting the Korean market in the future.”[246]

In early January 2014, the KFTC imposed its largest ever fine for construction-related bid rigging.  The fines, which totaled KRW 132 billion ($123 million) against 21 companies address bid-rigging for construction of the new Incheon Sunway Line 2.  The KFTC is expected to continue to focus on rooting out what is viewed as a long-established practice of collusion in South Korea’s construction industry.[247]

In November, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission reduced the record fines it had levied against nine power companies for their coordinated refusal to negotiate lower rates for the power they sold to the Taiwan Power Company over a four-year period.  In March, the power companies had been fined a record NT $6.32 billion ($213 million).  Two of the companies appealed the ruling.[248]  In a November decision, the total fines were reduced to NT $6.02 billion ($203 million).[249]

In September 2013, the Egyptian Competition Authority (“ECA”) announced the completion of draft amendments to Egypt’s Competition Law, and, in October and November, held a national dialogue with a variety of stakeholders on the potential changes.[250]  The revised law would adopt a policy goal of “social justice” by means of endorsing small and medium-sized businesses.  The specific proposed amendments aim to increase the ECA’s independence and efficiency by the following measures:  introducing a merger control system; granting the ECA board the right to settle cases or refer them to the public prosecutor; reorganizing the composition of the board; reviewing the prescribed penalties and proportionality of fines imposed; introducing a full leniency program to bring the Competition Law in line with international best practices; increasing the penalties for non-cooperation with the ECA; and revising the minimum and maximum limits of settlement amounts.

On March 8, 2013, Turkey’s Competition Authority (“CA”) issued record fines of TRY 1.1 billion ($620 million) against 12 of the country’s banks for colluding over interest rates.[256]   After opening an investigation in November 2011, the CA found that the banks agreed on maximum deposit rates, increases in credit card interest rates, and commissions and fees for credit card services.  One bank, Garanti Bankasi, received a TRY 213 million ($102 million) penalty—the largest fine ever imposed on a single entity in Turkey.  However, the CA did not accuse the banks of operating a cartel, and the actual fines were therefore less than the TRY 4.4 billion ($2 billion) total that some industry officials had predicted.[257]

In June, the SACC reached settlements with 15 construction companies following allegations that they colluded to rig bids for construction projects related to the 2010 World Cup by, among other things, submitting sham bids.[261]  The fines, totaling 1.46 billion rand ($140 million), are the highest ever imposed by the SACC in a single investigation.  The settlements were a product of the SACC’s fast-track settlement process, which is designed to encourage companies facing investigations to disclose illegal activity in exchange for lower penalties.  The SACC began its investigation while construction of the 2010 World Cup Stadium was still in progress; 21 firms elected to participate in the fast-track process, though not all ultimately negotiated settlement agreements.  Industry leaders Avenge Ltd., Murray & Roberts Holdings Ltd, Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Ltd., and Stefanutti Stocks Holdings Ltd. agreed to fines of about 300 million rand ($30 million) each.  Stefanutti reached a separate agreement in July to pay an additional 56 million rand ($5.6 million) to settle claims not covered by the initial agreement.

[3]   The chart reflects court-imposed restitution, disgorgement, and penalties during the respective fiscal year stemming from an Antitrust Division investigation. The amounts reflected for FY 2001–2010 reflect only court-imposed restitution reported by the Antitrust Division, as we are unaware of any disgorgement or penalties resulting from an Antitrust Division criminal investigation prior to the municipal bond settlements in FY 2011.  See FY 2003-2012 Workload Statistics, supra note 1; 2010 Year-End Criminal Antitrust Update.

[5]   The following charts reflect estimates based upon sentencing information obtained using publicly available data reflecting the total prison days sentenced and total number of defendants receiving prison sentences during each fiscal year, and comparing that information against the FY 2010-2013 averages reported by the Antitrust Division, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Enforcement, Fine and Jail Charts, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/criminal/264101.html (last visited Dec. 16, 2013).  The underlying data for the years prior to FY 2013 can be found at FY 2003-2012 Workload Statistics, supra note 1.

[10]   Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Two Fujikura Ltd. Executives Indicted for Roles in Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to Subaru to be Installed in U.S. Cars (Sept. 19, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/September/13-at-1048.html; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, G.S. Electech Inc. Executive Indicted for Role in Bid Rigging and Price Fixing on Automobile Parts Installed in U.S. Cars (Sept. 11, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/September/13-at-1013.html; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Panasonic Executive Indicted for Role in Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to Toyota to be Installed in U.S. Cars (Sept. 24, 2013), available athttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/September/13-at-1060.html.

[11]   Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, G.S. Electech Inc. Executive Indicted for Role in Bid Rigging and Price Fixing on Automobile Parts Installed in U.S. Cars (Sept. 11, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/September/13-at-1013.html; see also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Two Executives Indicted for Roles in Fixing Prices on Automobile Parts Sold to Toyota to be Installed in U.S. Cars (Nov. 21, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-at-1244.html (“Today’s indictment reaffirms the Antitrust Division’s commitment to hold executives accountable for actions that corrupt the competitive landscape and harm consumers. . .The Antitrust Division continues to work closely with its fellow competition enforcers abroad to ensure that there are no safe harbors for executives who engage in international cartel crimes.”).

[33]     Appellee’s Affirmation in Support of Motion to Extend Time to File for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc at ¶ 4, United States v. Grimm, et al., supra note 26.

[34]   Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, AU Optronics Corporation Executive Sentenced for Role in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Apr. 29, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2013/296336.pdf.

[88]   Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: Commission fines producers of wire harnesses €141 million in cartel settlement (July 10, 2013), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-673_en.htm.

[93]   Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: Commission fines banks €1.71 billion for participating in cartels in the interest rate derivatives industry (Dec. 4, 2013), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1208_en.htm.

[95]   Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: Commission fines banks €1.71 billion for participating in cartels in the interest rate derivatives industry (Dec. 4, 2013), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1208_en.htm.

[98]     Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: Commission fines banks €1.71 billion for participating in cartels in the interest rate derivatives industry (Dec. 4, 2013), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1208_en.htm.  Barclays received full immunity for revealing the existence of the violation and thereby avoided a fine of around €690 million ($918 billion).  The Commission has opened proceedings against HSBC, Credit Agricole and JPMorgan.

[101]   Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: shortcomings in pharmaceutical sector requires further action (July 8, 2009), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-1098_en.htm?locale=en.

[103]   See “Pay-for-delay” generic drug deals fall after EU crackdown, Reuters (Dec. 9, 2013), available athttp://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/europe-pharmaceuticals-idUKL6N0JO22U20131209.

[107]   See Case C-510/11 P, Kone v Comm’n(Oct. 24, 2013), available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-510/11; Case C-501/11 P Schindler Holding and Others v. Comm’n(July 18, 2013), available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-444/11.

[118]   This can be seen as a reaction to the Court of Justice’s 2011 Pfleiderer judgment, which required national courts to weigh on a case-by-case basis the respective interests in favor of disclosure of information and in favor of the protection of that information, thus prohibiting blanket rules preventing disclosure and opening up the possibility of leniency documents becoming disclosable in court proceedings, which would have a significantly negative effect on the EU’s leniency program.  See Case C-360/09, Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt, 2011 E.C.R. I-05161.  Interestingly, in the 2013 Donau Chemiejudgment, the Court of Justice followed Pfleidererand ruled out the possibility of rigid rules preventing disclosure at national level.  See Case C-536/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v. Donau Chemie AG and Others(2013).

[121]   Press Release, European Commission, Antitrust: Commission confirms unannounced inspections in oil and biofuels sector (May 14, 2013), available athttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-435_en.htm.

[132]    See EU’s Almunia says looking into possible forex rigging, Reuters (Oct. 7, 2013), available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/07/eu-forex-idUSL6N0HX33M20131007. See also Speech: UBS European Conference 2013 (Nov. 12, 2013), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-906_en.htm.

[151]   Press Release, National Gazette (June 5, 2013), available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/06/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-5940.pdf; Press release, National Gazette (Aug. 31, 2013), available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/08/31/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-9212.pdf.  The new Authority faced fierce opposition from the opposition parties in Parliament and triggered criticism from both the European Commission and most of the authorities to be merged. The European Commission even commented that the proposed authority “does not guarantee that it will carry out its regulatory activity in an effective and independent way.” See http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/swd2012_spain_en.pdf.

[153]   U.K. Office of Fair Trading, Applications for Leniency and No-Action in Cartel Cases (July 2013), available at http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/51-13.

[191]   Press Release, COMCO, Sekretariat WEKO hat Vorabklärung wegen möglicher Absprachen von Währungswechselkursen eröffnet (Oct. 4, 2013) (not available in English), available at

[198]   Press Release, U.K. Office of Fair Trading, Retirement home security suppliers breached competition law, OFT decides (Dec. 6, 2013), available at http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/81-13.

[227]   Press Release, Japan Fair Trade Commission, The JFTC Issued