Moreover, it is just one of many cases to show that this dearth of civil enforcement was about to change with several high - profile cases that have spun off from Commission and national
competition authority decisions involving notably big institutional purchasers.
Not exact matches
These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the unfavorable outcome of litigation, including so - called «Paragraph IV» litigation and other patent litigation, related to any of our products or products using our proprietary technologies, which may lead to
competition from generic drug manufacturers; data from clinical trials may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways than we interpret it; the FDA may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components of our filings for our products, including our clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies and, for ALKS 5461, evidence of efficacy and adequacy of bridging to buprenorphine; clinical development activities may not be completed on time or at all; the results of our clinical development activities may not be positive, or predictive of real - world results or of results in subsequent clinical trials; regulatory submissions may not occur or be submitted in a timely manner; the company and its licensees may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize their products; there may be a reduction in payment rate or reimbursement for the company's products or an increase in the company's financial obligations to governmental payers; the FDA or regulatory
authorities outside the U.S. may make adverse
decisions regarding the company's products; the company's products may prove difficult to manufacture, be precluded from commercialization by the proprietary rights of third parties, or have unintended side effects, adverse reactions or incidents of misuse; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading «Risk Factors» in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10 - K and in subsequent filings made by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC»), which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.
The European Union's
competition authorities announced a major tax ruling against Apple's tax dealings with the Irish government on Tuesday, a
decision that will likely increase trans - Atlantic tension over how some of the world's largest companies pay taxes on their global operations.
The
decision by Greece's
competition authority tops off a difficult end to 2007 for Vivartia.
Energy watchdog Ofgem has announced their
decision to refer the big six to the newly created
competition and markets
authority, which ultimately could see the firms broken up.
Because the Port
Authority had been planning for a new bus terminal since at least 2013 and had seven months earlier settled on five possible concepts, the creation of a design
competition to prolong the
decision was seen as a stall.
Stephany Torres, a
competition lawyer, believes such a decision is indicative of the Competition Authorities» tendency to give public interest considerations a prominent role in mer
competition lawyer, believes such a
decision is indicative of the
Competition Authorities» tendency to give public interest considerations a prominent role in mer
Competition Authorities» tendency to give public interest considerations a prominent role in merger review.
advising on appeals against
decisions of national
competition and regulatory
authorities and the European Commission
You can't have your cake and eat it: the High Court rules that defendants who do not appeal a penalty
decision can not then sue for their money back My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it (Boris Johnson, Mayor of London) Appealing a
decision by the
competition authorities is risky, time - consuming -LSB-...]
Final infringement
decisions of national
competition authorities and review courts should be irrebuttable proof of the infringement in subsequent private enforcement proceedings, the paper says and the current acquis communautaire on the scope of damages should be codified.
The Commission
decision concerned the implementation of the cartel within the EU, while the Czech
competition authority concerned the implementation of the cartel within the Czech Republic before accession.
In 2009, in a case concerning the market for mobile telecom on the French Indian Ocean islands of la Réunion and Mayotte, the French
competition authority imposed interim measures on a subsidiary of the French telecom operator SFR because of (alleged) abuse of a dominant position; I use the word «alleged», since the final
decision is not given yet (cf. a second interim
decision of 24 January 2012, par.
In June 2014, the
Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) took steps to deal with MFN clauses when it published its provisional
decision on remedies in the private motor insurance (PMI) market investigation (Competition & Markets Authority, Private Motor Insurance Market Investigation, Provisional Decision on Remedies, 12 Jun
decision on remedies in the private motor insurance (PMI) market investigation (
Competition & Markets
Authority, Private Motor Insurance Market Investigation, Provisional
Decision on Remedies, 12 Jun
Decision on Remedies, 12 June 2014).
That was the main argument made by France Télécom and Orange Caraïbe when they appealed against a
decision of the French
competition authority which had fined them for abusing their dominant positions.
My final remark on this case is a second remark concerning the fact that the ECJ seems to be of the opinion that there was no exclusionary effect, because FK won back the contracts in 2007 and still had its distribution network in place, whereas the
decision of the Danish
competition authority at stake dates from 2004.
For an effective enforcement of antitrust law it is also necessary that
decisions of national
competition authorities finding an infringement automatically constitute proof in court proceedings in all Member States.
The Damages Directive, which was implemented in the United Kingdom in March 2017, provides that final
decisions of national
competition authorities (or review courts) in other member states may be presented before national courts as at least prima facie evidence that an infringement of
competition law has occurred.
Such proceedings may be brought before the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on a stand - alone basis (in which case, a complainant must prove an infringement of certain competition law rules) or on a follow - on basis (which requires an existing infringement decision from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European C
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on a stand - alone basis (in which case, a complainant must prove an infringement of certain
competition law rules) or on a follow - on basis (which requires an existing infringement decision from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European C
competition law rules) or on a follow - on basis (which requires an existing infringement
decision from the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European C
Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA), the CAT on an appeal from a
decision of the CMA or the European Commission).
Ping Europe v
Competition and Markets
Authority: acting for the CMA in an appeal against its
decision on internet sales bans.
In the case of the
competition authority, since it does not under EU law have the power to adopt a
decision concluding that there is no infringement of EU law, it can not cause companies to entertain a legitimate expectation that their conduct does not infringe
competition rules.
BINDING EFFECT OF
DECISIONS BY COMPETITION AUTHORITIES The new law introduces a binding effect of decisions made by courts and competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringement
DECISIONS BY
COMPETITION AUTHORITIES The new law introduces a binding effect of decisions made by courts and competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringeme
COMPETITION AUTHORITIES The new law introduces a binding effect of decisions made by courts and competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringeme
AUTHORITIES The new law introduces a binding effect of
decisions made by courts and competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringement
decisions made by courts and
competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringeme
competition authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringeme
authorities of other Member States and the European Commission, thereby removing the need to prove one of the elements of the breach — the infringement (fault).
Decisions rendered by
competition authorities in other EU Member States will have evidential value in relation to proving an infringement, but could be rebutted by defendants.
Recent examples of follow - on actions handled by NautaDutilh's Cartel Damages Team relate to
decisions of
competition authorities about the following cartels:
With respect to «stand alone» actions — i.e. actions initiated without a prior
decision by the EC or a national
competition authority — there is naturally no
decision that could have a binding effect and the claimant will have to prove that an infringement of
competition law has occurred.