HELIO’s Post

Costs for planning and executing provider-led joint ventures are poised to increase without the Federal Trade Commission's 2000 collaboration guidelines.

Costs for planning and executing provider-led joint ventures are poised to increase without the Federal Trade Commission's 2000 collaboration guidelines.

On March 13, Alfred Kuffler will be discussing the evolution and effectiveness of OPA 90 with other professionals in the #maritime industry at the CMA Shipping Conference. To learn more, follow the link below.

Tune in to the latest MGA Minute episode! Varnum partners Harvey Koning and Greg Wright unpack the implications of the Corporate Transparency Act for manufacturers. Check out the video. #CorporateTransparencyAct

At the end of January, the European Commission (EC) announced that it is had begun conducting “unannounced inspections” – commonly known as dawn raids – at the European offices of the world’s leading tyremakers. The investigation intends to find out whether or not “the inspected companies may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices”. In the days immediately after that news broke, it quickly became apparent that (in alphabetical order) Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli all received those visits. All the above companies issued statements denying the allegations and confirming that they are cooperation with the authorities. The EC’s announcement was short on detail and the investigated tyremakers are being understandably tight-lipped about the whole thing, which leaves significant questions about what the grounds for such an investigation were in the first place. What we do know is that the investigation relates to the suggestion that there has been price-related collusion within the highest levels of the European tyre business. Furthermore, at the time of the initial investigation announcement, the EC reported that “public communication” plays a big role since, the EC is “concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications.” A few days after news of the EC investigation broke, the US offices of the same tyremakers were sued in America. The lawyers bringing the class-action suing on behalf of the named plaintiff in that case, Rena Sampayan did so in the State of California. Documents filed in relation to Rena Sampayan versus Tyremakers offer a bit more detail as to the grounds for the actions against some of the best-known tyre brands. In short, the legal action was prompted by two things – the string of tyre price increases the market has witnessed across several different global regions in recent years; and, secondly, the manner in which tyremakers have communicated price information. While no-one has been able to draw a straight line between the EC investigation and Sampayan versus Tyremakers, it is more than likely that the EC investigation provided the inspiration for the action against the same tyremakers in the US. For the same reason, there is likely to be a degree of crossover in the argumentation used in both cases. A couple of weeks later, in mid-February, a second class-action case was brought against the same tyremakers in America, bringing the legal action total to three – one EC investigation across “various member states” in Europe and two class-action suits in the USA. The latter case was also brought in the Southern District of New York but the fact that Marco A. Torres is named as plaintiff, distinguishes it from Sampayan versus Tyremakers. However, the cases are similar. As in Sampayan versus Tyremakers, Torres versus Tyremakers is driven by the

Great news! We see this daily when directors are mis-advised, highlighting the long road ahead to end these practices within firms that also advertise on various verticals. Additionally, there has been a significant increase in unregulated packagers providing inaccurate advice to directors. Learn more about recent developments in this area: https://lnkd.in/erFgQXUZ

The ECJ's Illumina/Grail ruling is significant. The ECJ found that the EC could not unilaterally expand its jurisdiction to reach non-reportable deals. And it means that companies will now have more certainty about whether - and by which agencies - mergers will be reviewed. EC officials had publicly defended Article 22 by saying that it was so rarely used that companies should not worry about it so much. But that always missed the mark. The rarity of an event that can significantly extend the period from signing to closing made deals harder to negotiate, because drafting conditions to closing around low-probability/high-impact events is inherently difficult. This ruling shares similarities - I think - with a US court striking down the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements. The US court found that the FTC lacked authority to enforce such a significant rule without a clearer mandate from Congress. In both situations, the agency argued that its position was good policy and therefore should be allowed to stand. In neither case did the agency seek legislative authority, probably because they knew they could not get it. And in both cases a court ruled that democratic principles required a legislative solution, not unilateral agency action.

THIS audio clip with Whitney Welch https://lnkd.in/e6G_NNKT is the reason that Dal-tile and Mohawk are petrified of having it revealed that they are in violation of VA Code § 18.2-499 in court in front of a jury (see below). In this conversation recorded on February 8, 2022,  Whitney Welch (VP, Commercial Sales for Dal-tile) names Christine Phillips (VP, Mid-Atlantic Region, Daltile), Claire Copertino (Arch Rep, MD/DC, Dal-tile), Steve Radford (SSC Manager, Virginia Beach, Dal-tile) and Clara Jean Donahue (Customer Sales, Dal-tile) as the individuals sabotaging my career. She also states that she had already warned Christine Phillips that she was setting me up to fail and that I would sue the company for it. More important, what do you think was the real reason that the VP of the Mid-Atlantic, the Arch Rep under Christine Phillips’ thumb and two other members of Phillips' Operations team to HIDE PROJECT DATA and FINANCIAL REPORTS?! What was really going on in the region? This is the scandal that Dal-tile and Mohawk Industries is petrified of having exposed (in addition to all of their other scandals). VA CODE § 18.2-499. Combinations to injure others in their reputation, trade, business or profession; rights of employees. A.     Any two or more persons who combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of (i) willfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever or (ii) willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act, shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under § 18.2-500. The damages for this penalty are treble (or Triple).

📢 Important Program Update 🔔 Key Supplement: The EU Attorney General issued a formal opinion today on the antitrust arguments presented by Booking.com. This opinion is a crucial development in the ongoing EU investigation into Booking.com's price parity requirements for hotel room pricing. Join our panel as they discuss the opinion and its far-reaching implications for the industry. Don't miss this insightful discussion! 👇 #Antitrust #BookingDotCom #EUInvestigation #HotelIndustry #LegalUpdate #PanelDiscussion

Same procedure as last year? Same procedure as every year! It was a pleasure meeting the German antitrust community at the annual meeting of the Studienvereinigung Kartellrecht e. V. and listening to President Mundt‘s annual state-of-rhe-union address. President Mundt re-itterated his concerns about introducing call-in powers in national EU merger control regimes, his skepticism about raising turnover thresholds and argued in favor of a transaction-value threshold similar to the German and Austrian tests. In terms of substantive merger control, he pointed to the importance of innovation-based theories of harm. He emphasized the FCO’s focus on using innovative screening and monitoring tools in cartel enforcement in times of stagnating leniency applications (the number of which the FCO will likely no longer publish going forward). Annd we may also hear from the FCO soon on no-poach and orher labor releted practices enforcement… And finally, a Happy Holiday Season to the German antitrust community!