Taking Stock of the Collective Proceedings Regime in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—A Successful Compromise?

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-132
Author(s):  
Stephen Wisking ◽  
Ruth Allen
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Action System ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers the UK collective proceedings regime for damages claims in respect of competition law breaches, which was first introduced in 2003 and significantly broadened in 2015. The regime aims to balance a desire to facilitate redress for victims of competition law infringements against the risk of frivolous or unmeritorious litigation (and the perceived excesses of the US class action system). By reference to the approach taken in the collective claims brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), this chapter examines how that balance has been struck in practice, and whether it can be said to be a successful compromise.

1 Introduction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veljanovski Cento
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Concerted Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
Competitive Behaviour ◽  
The Uk

This introductory chapter provides an overview of cartel damages. The Damages Directive 2014/104/EU Article 2(14) defines a cartel as ‘an agreement or concerted practice between two or more competitors aimed at coordinating their competitive behaviour on the market or influencing the relevant parameters of competition’. Not only do cartels harm their customers and suppliers, they restrict and distort competition as well as markets, and retard economic growth, productivity, and product innovation. As such, a cartel is illegal under Article 101 TFEU and in the UK is a Chapter I Prohibition under the Competition Act 1998. Indeed, competition authorities around the world are cracking down on cartels. In the last two decades, the European Commission has focused on cartels, imposing heavy fines and encouraging those who have been harmed to sue for damages. The UK, Ireland, Australia, and other countries have followed the US by making price-fixing a criminal offence and have jailed and disqualified directors. This chapter then considers the implications of Brexit for competition law and private damages actions.

Private Enforcement in the UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-336
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

In Chapter 12, Barry Rodger retraces his footsteps in relation to his contributions in both earlier collections on the theme of private enforcement in the UK, with a particular slant on the extent to which consumers have benefited, or may benefit, from statutory and case law developments in the area. Accordingly, this chapter assesses how private enforcement of competition law rights has developed in the UK over the last twenty years. Key legislative developments, inter alia the Competition Act 1998, Enterprise Act 2002 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, have transformed the private enforcement architecture, notably with the introduction, and increasingly significant and enhanced role of the specialist tribunal, Competition Appeal Tribunal, and the availability of an opt-out collective redress mechanism. The chapter assesses the key UK statutory and case law developments, in comparison with the US private antitrust enforcement model, to reflect on the disappointing extent to which effective redress for consumers has been provided to date, despite those legal and institutional developments, although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Merricks should be pivotal in this context.

Legal changes bring UK/US class action regimes closer

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Action Model ◽  
The Uk

Significance With the new rules, the United Kingdom is making it easier for consumers to bring collective legal actions for alleged violations of competition law, although it has largely rejected adopting US procedures that incentivise lawyers to bring class actions. Further reforms under the 2014 EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions will apply throughout the EU from December 2016. In the United States, the class action regime has been tightened in recent years, and a recent decision by an influential federal appellate judge is increasing court scrutiny of class action settlements. Impacts Safeguards will prevent the UK system from evolving along the lines of the more litigation-friendly US class action model. The UK system is unlikely to be broadened to make it easier for plaintiffs to bring collective actions in areas other than competition law. Legal decisions and statute changes that have discouraged US class actions are unlikely to be reversed. This applies especially in securities actions.

6. Procedure: penalties and leniency arrangements

2019 ◽  
pp. 135-155
Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino
Keyword(s):  
Hard Core ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores the financial penalties imposed for breaches of competition law in the EU and the UK. Broadly speaking, enforcers have three kinds of ‘weapons’ in their arsenal to use against those who attack competition: remedies, imprisonment, and fines. The first of these weapons may be the most powerful, and includes conduct, structural, and third-party remedies. Incarceration — the second weapon — is a well-publicized feature of the US system, and has been an option in the UK in relation to hard-core cartel conduct since the entry into force of the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA). The argument in favour of the efficacy of fines, the third weapon, is a persuasive one: companies take part in anti-competitive conduct in order to boost profits; remove those profits and the incentive for illegal conduct vanishes.

‘To see oursels as ithers see us’: Reflections on Scottish Independence from the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Euan Hague ◽  
Alan Mackie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Scottish Independence ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Scottish Diaspora

The United States media have given rather little attention to the question of the Scottish referendum despite important economic, political and military links between the US and the UK/Scotland. For some in the US a ‘no’ vote would be greeted with relief given these ties: for others, a ‘yes’ vote would be acclaimed as an underdog escaping England's imperium, a narrative clearly echoing America's own founding story. This article explores commentary in the US press and media as well as reporting evidence from on-going interviews with the Scottish diaspora in the US. It concludes that there is as complex a picture of the 2014 referendum in the United States as there is in Scotland.

Identity Politics and Migration

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-158
Author(s):  
Vytis Čiubrinskas
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Host Country ◽  
Social Anthropology ◽  
The Us ◽  
And Migration ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Current ◽  
Respective Host

The Centre of Social Anthropology (CSA) at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in Kaunas has coordinated projects on this, including a current project on 'Retention of Lithuanian Identity under Conditions of Europeanisation and Globalisation: Patterns of Lithuanian-ness in Response to Identity Politics in Ireland, Norway, Spain, the UK and the US'. This has been designed as a multidisciplinary project. The actual expressions of identity politics of migrant, 'diasporic' or displaced identity of Lithuanian immigrants in their respective host country are being examined alongside with the national identity politics of those countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document