Office of Fair Trading

Written by Simon Harms and Stephen C. Tupper

In-house lawyers need to imagine this. The company’s preventative competition law compliance programme has failed to prevent a serious infringement. Former co-conspirators have beaten you in the race to obtain immunity by using leniency applications. Years of disruptive and intrusive investigations by competition law enforcement authorities have culminated in the imposition of a heavy financial penalty. Management in this position needs to decide whether it is time to move on or whether the company should prolong the pain by appealing the regulator’s decision.

Not that long ago, competition authorities such as the European Commission (the “Commission”) and the UK’s Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) would – often after years of painstaking investigations – impose fines which were low relative to the size of the companies (and the profits made from the anti-competitive conduct). As a result, most fined companies did not bother appealing. That has changed, to the point that it is now unusual for a company subject to a finding of anticompetitive conduct not to take its chances in court.
Continue Reading UK/EU Competition: courts reduce antitrust fines

Written by Stephen C. Tupper | Lisa Navarro

On 10 September 2009 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) dawn-raided the offices of Sports Direct. The dawn raid is the first public step by the OFT in its investigation into alleged anti-competitive agreements between Sports Direct and JJB Sports.

Whilst no details have been released formally as to the nature of the alleged anticompetitive conduct, it is likely to be linked to agreements between the two companies for JJB to stock Sports Direct’s own-brand products (e.g., Slazenger, Everlast, Dunlop, etc.) and, specifically, the arrangements regarding onward pricing.

The OFT’s investigation, which commenced in January of 2009, was triggered by JJB whistleblowing to the OFT. As a result, JJB has been granted immunity under the OFT’s leniency policy from any fines under the Competition Act 1998 and from criminal prosecution of responsible directors under the Enterprise Act 2002. Sports Direct, however, is subject to the risk of both. In addition, the decision by the OFT to involve the SFO raises the prospect of additional criminal liability to which both companies remain exposed.
Continue Reading Whistleblowing and Dawn Raids — Sportswear Giants at it Again