RBB has taken part in a wide range of litigation cases including:

	FHH v EWS:
	RBB advised Freightliner Heavy Haul (FHH) in relation to a damage claim before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, and submitted an expert report to the court. The claim for damages followed a 2006 finding by the UK rail regulator that EWS abused its dominant position by entering into exclusionary contracts, discrimination and engaging in predatory pricing. It was settled prior to trial.
	London Stock Exchange v PLUS Markets:
	RBB was retained by PLUS Markets in connection with litigation before the English High Court in a dispute concerning certain restrictions in the rules operated by the London Stock Exchange in relation to the trading of AIM-listed securities. Our expert report assisted the client in reaching a settlement before trial that enabled PLUS to gain access to secondary trading in the AIM stocks.
	Irish Department of Health and Children:
	RBB acted for the Department in connection with an Irish High Court dispute over reductions in the rate of reimbursement paid to retail pharmacists for dispensing medicines. The Court dismissed the pharmacy challenge to the Department's measures.
	Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) v SAS:
	RBB acted for SAS before both the City Court and the Appeal Court in Oslo. The case concerned a claim for damages by NAS arising from unlawful access to commercial information by SAS. Our expert reports presented a number of approaches to evaluating the possible damages based on a detailed assessment of the domestic airlines market in Norway.
	Dublin waste:
	RBB was engaged in two linked disputes in the Irish High Court concerning the plans of Dublin’s four local authorities to exclude private waste contractors from the market. We acted for the Local Authorities on this case and presented evidence to the court on the economic effects of competition in the market compared with monopoly provision.
	Niemans v. Municipality of Vianen:
	A Partner in RBB's Hague office has been appointed as the expert tribunal member by the court of the Hague on behalf of Niemans. Due to Vianen's conduct, Niemans has been unable to expand its factory that produces construction materials. The experts have been asked by the court to advise on the likely development of prices on the market but for Vianen's conduct.
	Nationwide v SAA / Comair/BA v SAA:
	RBB advised South African Airways before the South African High Court in relation to damage claims arising from an abuse of dominance finding regarding the incentive arrangements offered by SAA to travel agents.
	Orange Netherlands v Dutch State:
	RBB advised mobile operator Orange Netherlands (now part of T-Mobile) in connection with a claim that it had been discriminated against by the Dutch state as regards the distribution of mobile telephony licenses. The claim arose from the fact that GSM licences for KPN and Vodafone had been granted by means of a beauty contest, without payment, whereas Orange had to obtain its license through an auction process.
	The Number Italia v Telecom Italia:
	RBB advised Telecom Italia on alleged damages suffered by The Number Italia in the market for directory assistance services. RBB provided a critique of the damages calculations presented to the Court by The Number Italia and produced alternative damages quantification on behalf of Telecom Italia which led to a settlement of the case.
	JTI v BATSA:
	RBB provided expert witness reports and court testimony on behalf of JTI in a case before the South African Competition Tribunal against BAT (South Africa), under the dominant firm provisions of South African competition law.
	UK Airport Operator:
	RBB advised a UK airport operator in connection with a litigation case brought by an airline regarding a (vertical) airport services agreement.
	UK Department of Health v generic pharmaceutical suppliers:
	RBB acted for Generics UK, a subsidiary of German-based pharmaceuticals company Merck, in relation to litigation in the English courts following an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the UK Department of Health into alleged collusion in the supply of generic medicines to the National Health Service. Our work on this case involved detailed empirical assessment of the possible impact of the allegations, presentation of results and discussions with the Department of Health’s legal team and economic experts in the context of settlement discussions, and also some analysis of the relationship between patent licensing and generic medicine supply. Merck subsequently reached a settlement in the dispute with the Department of Health in respect of the case in England and Wales.
	Attheraces Limited v British Horseracing Board:
	RBB acted as experts to Attheraces on this litigation before the Chancery Division of the English High Court. The case involved a dispute over the price and other terms on which the BHB supplied data on British horseracing to bookmakers and broadcasters. RBB’s expert submitted expert reports to the Court on this matter, and was cross-examined on his expert evidence during court hearings in October/November 2005. Judgment was awarded in favour of Attheraces, but that verdict was overturned in a subsequent Court of Appeal Judgment in February 2007. The parties have since reached a commercially negotiated settlement to the case.
	SAS:
	RBB advised the major Scandinavian airline SAS in connection with an appeal against the Norwegian competition authority’s decision to fine SAS for abuse of a dominant market position on the Oslo-Haugesund route. We presented evidence on this case before the Oslo City Court in 2005, leading to the court’s judgment to annul the decision and the fine against SAS. This Judgment was subsequently appealed by the Authority but the case was settled without any fine for SAS.
	Somerfield/Morrisons:
	RBB acted for grocery retailer Somerfield in connection with its appeal before the Competition Appeals Tribunal in London against the decision of the Competition Commission to impose remedies on Somerfield’s acquisition of mid-range stores from Morrisons. We submitted an expert report to the Tribunal assessing the economic analysis on which the Commission relied for its decision.
	Days Medical Aids (DMA) v Pihsiang:
	RBB Economics submitted an expert report on behalf of our client DMA in this litigation in the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court, analysing the economic effects of the long term exclusive European distribution deal between the parties, and Derek Ridyard was called to defend the expert report before the Court. The Judgment was issued in January 2004, finding in favour of DMA and awarding DMA £10m in damages. In accepting DMA's argument that the agreement did not breach Article 101(1) the Judge observed that "Mr Ridyard's report was a model of its kind and I found his evidence in particular to be both objective and compelling".
	ICC Arbitration:
	RBB was involved in the production of a series of expert reports in connection with a dispute arising from a long term speciality chemical supply agreement before an ICC Tribunal. Our initial work on this case involved assessment of market definition and the alleged foreclosure effects of the agreement. After that part of the case was resolved in our client’s favour, our later work and evidence to the Tribunal concerned the correct approach to quantification of damages.