 |
Tobacco products, UK: |
| |
RBB advised Imperial Tobacco, the leading UK supplier of tobacco products, in connection with an investigation by the OFT under Chapter I of the UK Competition Act. The case involved a complex economic analysis of both the object and the effects of a variety of vertical agreements between suppliers and retailers |
| |
|
|
Online restraints: |
| |
RBB has recently advised several leading brand owners on the economics of online restraints, their role in selective distribution systems, and efficiencies relating to brand protection and the prevention of free-riding. |
| |
|
|
Motor vehicles, UK: |
| |
RBB advised one of the major suppliers of new cars in the UK on the scope for an individual Article 101 assessment of the impact of its proposed dealer arrangements on competition. Our advice analysed the extent to which vertical restrictions falling outside the safe harbour provided by the vehicles block exemption could nevertheless be defended under an effects-based competition assessment. |
| |
|
|
Microprocessors: |
| |
RBB advised AMD during the investigation by the European Commission into Intel exclusionary agreements. RBB submitted evidence to the Commission on behalf of AMD on a wide range of issues, including market definition and Intel’s dominance, and, in particular, substantiating theories of harm to as efficient competitors in relation to exclusionary discounts. The Commission ultimately concluded that Intel had abused its position of dominance in the supply of microprocessors by, inter alia, engaging in discounts conditional on (near) exclusivity. |
| |
|
|
Stock exchange services: |
| |
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. |
| |
|
|
Carbonated soft drinks: |
| |
RBB advised The Coca-Cola Company during the European Commission’s investigation of a variety of rebate and contractual practices alleged to foreclose competition in the commercial beverages sector. This work comprised market definition analysis, an assessment of the extent to which The Coca-Cola Company could be considered to hold a dominant position, and also an economic assessment of the commitments agreed with the Commission concerning its commercial relationship with bottlers and distributors. |
| |
|
|
Event ticketing: |
| |
RBB advised Ticketmaster on a number of separate competition law investigations concerning its pricing policies and the impact of long term exclusive agreements with retailers and promoters. This work has included advice in connection with an OFT investigation into the ticket sales industry that concluded that there was such contracts raised no competition problem, plus involvement in a number of investigations in other European jurisdictions including Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. |
| |
|
|
Food cans: |
| |
RBB advised Crown Packaging in connection with an investigation by the European Commission into allegations that exclusive supply contracts with large industrial customers foreclosed competition in the food cans market. After presenting an analysis of the pro-competitive nature of these vertical restrictions at the Oral Hearing, the Commission dropped its objections to the arrangements. |
| |
|
|
Toys and games, UK: |
| |
RBB advised international toy supplier Hasbro in connection with two investigations by the UK’s OFT into (primarily vertical) restrictive arrangements in the retail and wholesale distribution of toys and games in the UK market. Our work involved some assessment of the impact of the arrangements on consumer prices and competition, and also of their possible pro-competitive rationale. |
| |
|
|
Impulse ice cream: |
| |
RBB worked for Unilever’s impulse ice cream business on a number of separate competition law investigations into the alleged exclusionary effects of practices such as freezer and outlet exclusivity, and wholesale distribution arrangements and retailer discounts. This work involved advice in numerous EC jurisdictions, including three successive investigations by the UK authorities and the European Commission’s Article 101 investigation (and subsequent appeals to the Court of First Instance and ECJ) concerning the Irish Van den Bergh Foods case. |
| |
|
|
Airline ticketing: |
| |
RBB personnel advised British Airways in connection with the European Commission’s investigation of the competitive effects of BA’s travel agent incentive payments. We also advised BA in relation to its subsequent appeal to the Court of First Instance. |
| |
|
|
Petrol retailing, Netherlands: |
| |
RBB advised Shell in connection with the NMa’s investigations into margin support arrangements for petrol retailers in the Netherlands. We prepared a substantial expert report that analysed the effects of the practice, and rebutted the concerns raised in the economist’s assessment that had been prepared by the NMa. The NMa subsequently closed its investigations without taking action. |
| |
|
|
Mobility scooters: |
| |
RBB Economics submitted an expert report on behalf of our client Days Medical Aids (DMA) in its litigation against Pihsiang in the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court. We analysed the economic effects of the long term exclusive European distribution deal between the parties, and defended the expert report before the Court. The Judgment was issued in January 2004, finding in favour of DMA and awarding DMA £10m in damages. |
| |
|
|
Speciality chemicals: |
| |
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. |
| |
|
