CARTELS, MARKETS AND CRIMEassets.cambridge.org/97811070/36307/frontmatter/...CARTELS, MARKETS AND CRIME Thisstudyofthenormativejustiﬁcationfortheuseofcriminalsanctions as a means

CARTEL S , MARKET S AND CR IME

This study of the normative justification for the use of criminal sanctionsas a means of cartel control goes beyond the historical and economicviewpoints by adding a normative evaluation of anti-cartel regimes andanalysing cartel control in the USA, Europe and the UK. The analysis isunique in seeking to establish why, in a liberal society, criminal sanctionsshould apply to individuals who participate in this sort of activity.Although cartels have been rhetorically likened to theft and fraud, thereare significant differences. Notwithstanding these differences, Cartels,Markets and Crime presents an argument for the criminalisation ofeconomic collusion, and, with this argument in mind, analyses theregimes of the US, EU and UK and considers the possibility of globalconvergence.

bruce wardhaugh is a lecturer at the School of Law, Queen’sUniversity Belfast, where his research interests include competition lawand WTO law.

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-1-107-03630-7 - Cartels, Markets and Crime: A Normative Justification forthe Criminalisation of Economic CollusionBruce WardhaughFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/9781107036307

http://www.cambridge.org


THE CAMBRIDGE ANTITRUST AND

COMPETITION LAW SERIES

Series Editors:MaherM.Dabbah, Chair, Competition Law and Policy andDirector of the Inter-disciplinaryCentre for Competition Law and Policy (ICC), Queen Mary, University of London

Barry Hawk, Professor of Law and Director of the Fordham Competition Law Institute,Fordham University School of Law; Senior Counsel, Labruna Mazziotti Segni

Board members:Dr Werner Berg, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLPProfessor Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, WilmerHaleProfessor Alan Fels, The Australia and New Zealand School of GovernmentProfessor Eleanor Fox, New York University, New YorkProfessor Frederic Jenny, Cour de Cassation, ParisMr Paul Lasok QC, Monckton Chambers, LondonProfessor Mitsuo Mitsushita, Nagashima, Ohno & Tsunematsu, Tokyo, Japan;Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo

Dr David E. Tadmor, Partner, Tadmor & Co. Law Offices, Tel Aviv, Israel; formerDirector General of the Israel Antitrust Authority

Dr Cento Valjenovski, Managing Partner, Case Associates, London

Publications within the Series consider various legal, economic and political develop-ments related to competition law and policy. They also consider the application ofcompetition law and policy in sector-specific as well as cross-sector contexts and dealwith policy questions ranging from the formation and adoption of competition lawand policy (whether at national, regional or international level) to those dealing withenforcement, and the connection between law and competition in the market place.The Series also accommodates different analytical and interdisciplinary viewpoints,such as law and economics; law and political science; law and economic geography-driven perspectives.

The Series includes publications designed to cater for academic demands as well aspractitioner publications catering for the continuously evolving needs of regulators,policy-makers, and practitioners, in particular lawyers and economists (who increas-ingly provide advice on regulatory questions).

The editorial board of the Series welcome proposals by authors and editorswho are interested in contributing to the Series through: academic monographs;revised PhD theses of high quality; practitioner texts and collections; and editedvolumes.

List of books in the series:

Cartels, Markets and Crime: A Normative Justification for the Criminalisation ofEconomic Collusion Bruce Wardhaugh 9781107036307

Merger Control Worldwide (two-volume set) General editors: Maher M. Dabbah andPaul Lasok QC 9780521195096

Greening EU Competition Law and Policy Suzanne Kingston 9781107003026






A Principled Approach to Abuse of Dominance in European Competition Law LizaLovdahl Gormsen 9780521767149

International and Comparative Competition Law Maher M. Dabbah 9780521516419

The International Dimension of EU Competition Law and Policy AnestisS. Papadopoulos 9780521196468

Anti-Cartel Enforcement Worldwide (three-volume set) General editors: MaherM. Dabbah and Barry E. Hawk 9780521897211











CARTELS, MARKETS AND

CRIME

A Normative Justification for the Criminalisationof Economic Collusion

BRUCE WARDHAUGH






University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit ofeducation, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107036307

© Bruce Wardhaugh 2014

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the written

permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2014

Printed in the United Kingdom by CPI Group Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataWardhaugh, Bruce, 1960–

Cartels, markets and crime : a normative justification for the criminalisationof economic collusion / Bruce Wardhaugh.

pages cm. – (The Cambridge antitrust and competition)ISBN 978-1-107-03630-7

1. Cartels – Europe – History. I. Title.HD2757.5.W37 2014

338.807–dc232013016197

ISBN 978-1-107-03630-7 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy ofURLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,

accurate or appropriate.






To Jen and Jay











CONTENTS

List of figures page xivPreface xvAcknowledgements xviTable of cases xviiTable of treaties, statutes and legislative instruments xxvii

Introduction 10.1 Cartels and calls for their criminalisation 10.2 Cartels and their effects 4

0.2.1 Defining cartels 40.2.2 The economic effect of cartels 7

0.3 An outline of this work 11

1 A normative approach to the criminalisation of cartelactivity 181.1 Liberalism and the harm to others justification of the

criminal law 181.1.1 Harm (generally) and criminalisation 181.1.2 Mill and the harm to others principle 191.1.3 Protected harms 221.1.4 Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ and the choice of social

institutions 26

1.2 An outline of a liberal theory of the limits to criminallaw 33

1.3 Cartel harms: an analysis 371.3.1 Raising the price of goods as a prohibited harm 371.3.2 Creating deadweight loss as a prohibited harm 401.3.3 Creation of social waste as a prohibited harm 411.3.4 Stunting the development of new products and processes as a

prohibited harm 421.3.5 Exacerbation of X-inefficiency as a prohibited harm 43

1.4 Harm to the institution of distributive justice as thejustification for criminalising cartel activity 43

ix






1.5 Conclusion: an extension and two caveats 48

2 Corporate responsibility, agency and the advantages ofvicarious liability 522.1 Introduction 522.2 The agency problem in corporate action and control 542.3 Attribution rules: principles of corporate liability 562.4 Identification, Tesco and a historical mistake 57

2.4.1 The development of the doctrine 572.4.2 Tesco’s flaw 65

2.5 Alternative models of corporate liability 672.5.1 Aggregation 672.5.2 Corporate fault and/or corporate culture 692.5.3 Vicarious liability 71

2.6 The objective of corporate liability: deterrence beyondtort 75

2.7 A model corporate criminal liability regime 792.7.1 Agency, monitoring and liability: attribution rules 802.7.2 Vicarious liability: with or without a due diligence

defence 83

2.8 Conclusion 87

3 Closing the deterrence gap: individual sanctions 893.1 Introduction 893.2 A model of deterrence 903.3 Deterrence and cartel activity 92

3.3.1 Probability of cartel detection 933.3.2 Cartel overcharges 933.3.3 Cartel duration 943.3.4 Implications for cartel deterrence 95

3.4 Bankruptcy and the consequences of optimally deterrentfines 953.4.1 Bankruptcy considerations 953.4.2 The existing fine regime as under-deterring 97

3.5 Filling the deterrence gap with individual criminalliability 101

3.6 Conclusion 103

4 The American experience of cartel control: values andeffectiveness 1064.1 Introduction 1064.2 Natural law and morality: the nineteenth-century

background 108

x contents






4.3 Pre-Sherman Act values: the states and Congress 1144.3.1 Nineteenth-century public policy 1144.3.2 Early state antitrust regimes 1144.3.3 The Congressional background 120

4.4 Protection of consumer surplus: judicial interpretation ofthe Sherman Act 1254.4.1 Early days: literalism or realism 1254.4.2 Standard Oil: per se and the rule of reason 1324.4.3 Appalachian Coals: a Depression-era outlier 1364.4.4 Per se rules against price-fixing 1384.4.5 Sensitivity to economic reality 147

4.5 Efficacy and enforcement: other strands to the AmericanSystem 1574.5.1 Private (civil) enforcement 1584.5.2 Certainty of punishment 1624.5.3 Leniency programmes 162

4.6 Conclusions: American values 165

5 The European experience 1685.1 Introduction 1685.2 A tale of two cities: Washington and Freiburg 170

5.2.1 The influence of Washington 1725.2.2 The influence of Freiburg 175

5.3 Completing the market: the early days of Europeancompetition policy 1815.3.1 Market Integration as a goal of competition policy 1825.3.2 Economic crisis and litigation failure: a reformulation of

competition policy 1905.3.3 Economic analysis, modernisation and the shift to consumer

welfare 1935.3.4 Is consumer welfare the sole standard? 197

5.4 Conclusion 204

6 Cartel control in the UK: the failure of supplementarycriminalisation 2116.1 Introduction 2116.2 The UK regime: 1880–1936 213

6.2.1 The rise of marketplace liberalism 2136.2.2 Mill’s liberal influences 216

6.3 The economic downturn of the 1930s: cartels as industrialpolicy 2206.3.1 Economic downturn: the coal industry as an example 2206.3.2 Other industries 223

contents xi






6.4 Post-war: the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade PracticesCommission, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act andCourt 2246.4.1 Post-war internationalisation 2256.4.2 The post-war UK regime 227

6.5 The British reception of European reform 2316.5.1 Reforming the regime 2316.5.2 The attempt at criminalisation 2346.5.3 The failure of criminalisation 240

6.6 The 2012 reforms 2426.6.1 Calls for consultation 2426.6.2 The Reform Bill 244

6.7 Conclusion: tolerance and ad hocery – the failure ofsupplementary criminalisation 247

7 Internationalisation and transplantation 2537.1 Introduction 2537.2 Convergence: goals and types 254

7.2.1 Types of convergence 2547.2.2 Convergence, legal values and norms 257

7.3 Anglo-American values of antitrust 2597.3.1 Introduction 2597.3.2 American values 2607.3.3 European values 2617.3.4 British values 263

7.4 Competing values at the global level 2657.4.1 Hofstede’s results 2657.4.2 Difficulties with ‘top-down’ convergence 2677.4.3 Regional agreements as an alternative 2697.4.4 Global ‘bottom-up’ convergence 271

7.5 Resource allocation, institutional credibility and nationalpriorities 2767.5.1 Resource allocation as a global problem 2767.5.2 Resource allocation and competing demands 278

7.6 Corporate governance and cartel control 2807.6.1 The nature of the problem 2807.6.2 Individual criminal liability 281

7.7 Collectivist values and individual responsibility 2847.7.1 Hofstede’s insight redux 2847.7.2 Collectivist values and legal norms 285

7.8 Global convergence of corporate governance 2867.9 Cartel control, convergence and good practice 288

xii contents






Conclusion 2978.1 The normative background to cartel

criminalisation 2978.2 A pragmatic justification for cartel criminalisation 3028.3 Scepticism about the expansion of criminalisation: the US,

EU and UK regimes examined 3048.4 Scepticism about internationalisation 310

Bibliography 316Index 335

contents xiii






FIGURES

Figure 1 Welfare losses from monopoly page 7Figure 2 Loss from productive inefficiency 10

xiv






PREFACE

At the time that this work went to the publisher (January 2013), theEnterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (part of which was intended toreform the UK’s competition regime) was still subject to Parliamentaryconsideration. The Bill was expected to receive Royal Assent in thespring of 2013. Accordingly, the discussion of reforms to the UK regimereflects the provisional nature of this legislation.

This work refers to the Articles of the various European Treaties in theway they are numbered in the Treaties. This should present no confusionto those familiar with the topic. It has also relied upon CommissionDecisions (and other European materials) in authentic languages, whenthere is no authentic English version. I have consulted French, Germanand Dutch versions, though citing the French text. Unless otherwiseattributed, all translations are mine.

When a work which has been reprinted over time (e.g. Locke’s SecondTreatise) is cited, citations to chapters and sections are provided, avoid-ing page numbers. This facilitates users of other editions to find therelevant passage. The exception to this is Mill’s On Liberty where anauthoritative text exists, and to which I refer.

The terms ‘antitrust law’ and ‘competition law’ are used interchange-ably, though strictly speaking the former is American terminology. Thisallows for a bit of variation in my vocabulary.

All web references were verified on 30 January 2013.

xv






ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have assisted me in the production of this work. Parts ofthis work have appeared in print previously. In particular, some of theIntroduction and Chapter 1 appear as part of my article ‘A NormativeApproach to the Criminalisation of Cartel Activity’ in Legal Studies(2012), and part of Chapter 3 appeared as ‘Closing the DeterrenceGap: Individual Liability, the Cartel Offence and the BIS Consultation’in The Competition Law Journal (2011).

Prior to publication, I presented versions of the Legal Studies article atthe Socio-Legal Studies Annual Meeting in Brighton in 2011 and theSociety of Legal Scholars Meeting in Cambridge, also in 2011. Part ofChapter 2 was presented at the Socio-Legal Studies Association AnnualMeeting in Leicester in 2012 and at the 2012 Society of Legal Scholarsmeeting in Bristol. Parts of Chapter 4 were presented at the University ofEast Anglia/Centre for Competition Policy Conference in June of 2012. Iwish to thank all who commented on these papers (including anony-mous reviewers), and in particular Jonathan Galloway, Andreas Stephen,Angus MacCulloch, Bill Kovacic, Christopher Brown and Morten Hviid.The usual disclaimers apply.

I would also like to thank my wife, Jennifer, who assisted in checkingreferences and proof reading. Of course, all errors are mine alone.

My greatest debt is to my family, Jennifer and Jason, who tolerated mywork and endured my absence from them (physically, mentally and attimes spiritually) during the writing of this book. I doubt I would haveaccomplished this task without their support, for which I thank them.

xvi






TABLE OF CASES

Canada

Canadian Dredge and Dry Dock v. The Queen [1985] 1 SCR 662, 19 DLR(4th) 314, 19 CCC (3d) 1 57

Irving Paper Limited v. Atofina Chemicals Inc. (2009) 99 OR (3d) 358(Ont SC) 161

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd et al. v. Microsoft Corporation et al., Sun-RypeProducts Ltd et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al., andSamsung Electronics Co Ltd et autres v. Option Consommateurs etautres SCC Docket Numbers 34282, 342823 and 34617 (heard 17October 2012) 255

R v. Sault Ste Marie [1978] 2 SCR 1299, 85 DLR (3d) 161, 40 CCC(2d) 353

European Union

Commission Decisions

Electrical and Mechanical Carbon and Graphite Products (C.36.490)[2002] OJ L100/1 96

Case COMP/39406 – Commission Decision of 28.1.2009 relating toa proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of theEEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 – Marine Hoses) [2008] OJC122/01 101

Case COMP/B/37.766 – Summary of Commission Decision of 18 April2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establish-ing the European Community (Case COMP/B/37.766 – Dutch BeerMarket) [2008] OJ C122/01 101

Bathroom Fittings 23 June 2010, IP/10/790 (non-confidential version notyet available) 96

Case COMP/39839 Telefónica and Portugal Telecom; IP/11/1241,25.10.2011 (non-confidential version not yet available) 199

xvii






Commission Decisions

Commission Decision of 23 September 1964 relative à une procedure autitre de l’article 85 du traite (IV-A/00004-03344 Grundig-Consten)[1964] OJ 23/2545 182–4, 205–6

Commission Decision of 16 July 1969 relative à une procedure au titre del’article 85 du traite (IV/26.623 – Entente internationale de la quinine)[1969] OJ L192/5 182, 184–5, 189, 206

Commission Decision of 24 July 1969 relative à une procedure au titre del’article 85 du traite CEE (IV/26.267 –Matières colorantes) [1969]? OJL195/11 182, 184–7, 189, 206

Decision de la Commission, du 16 decembre 1971, relative à une proce-dure au titre de l’article 85 du traite de la CEE (IV/324 – Vereenigingvan Cementhandelaren) 72/22/CEE [1972] OJ L13/34 189

Commission Decision of 29 April 1994 relating to a proceeding underArticle 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.456 – Stichting Baksteen) 94/296/EC [1994] OJ L131/15 190, 198, 207

Commission Decision of 24 January 1999 relating to a proceeding underArticle 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement(Case IV.F.1/36.718 – CECED) [2000] OJ L187/47 198, 204, 207

Commission Decision of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuantto Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement(Case COMP/36.545/F3 – Amino Acids) [2000] OJ L152/24 196

Commission Decision of 21 November 2001 relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of theEEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.512 – Vitamins) [2003] OJL6/1 196

Commission Decision of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEAAgreement (Case COMP/E-1/36 604 – Citric Acid) [2002] OJL239/18 196

Commission Decision of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceedingunder Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEAAgreement (Case C.38.359 – Electrical and mechanical carbon andgraphite products ) [2004] OJ L125/49 96

Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to aproceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing theEuropean Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 – Elevators andEscalators) (notified under document number C(2007) 512 final)[2008] OJ C75/10 4

xviii table of cases






EU – Courts

Court of Justice

Cases 56 & 58/64 Consten SaRL and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v.Commission [1966] ECR 299, CMLR 418 182–4, 200, 205, 206,261–2, 292–3

Case 5/69 Völk v. Vervaecke [1969] ECR 295 187Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma NV v. Commission [1970] ECR 661 182Case 45/69 Boehringer Mannheim v. Commission [1970] ECR 769 182Cases 48, 49, 51–57/69 ICI v. Commission, BASF v. Commission, Bayer v.

Commission, Geigy v. Commission Sandoz v. Commission, Francolor v.Commission, Cassella v. Commission, ACNA v. Commission [1972]ECR 619 185, 187, 191

Case 6/72 Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can CompanyInc v. Commission [1973] ECR 215 202

Case 8/72 Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v. Commission [1972]ECR 977 189

Case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR 305 186Case 22/78 Hugin Kassaregister AB v. Commission [1979] ECR 1869 187Cases 100–103/80Musique Diffusion Francaise SA v. Commission [1983]

ECR 1825 187Case 240/83 Procureur de la Republique v. ADBHU [1985] ECR 531 203Cases 25 & 26/84 Ford Werke AG v. Commission [1985] ECR 2725 187C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125–9/85

AhlströmOy et al v.Commission [1988] ECR 5193 (“Woodpulp I”) 191C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 andC-125–9/85Ahlström

Oy et al v. Commission [1993] ECR I-1307 (“Woodpulp II”) 191C-137/92 P Commission v. BASF et al [1994] ECR I-2555 191C-185/93 Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr v. Gebrüder Reiff

[1993] ECR I-5801 187C-233/94 Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament [1997]

ECR I-2441 203C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999]

ECR I-3055 203C-379/99 PreussenElektra AG on the Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC

Treaty [2001] ECR I-2159 203C-453/99 Courage Limited v. Crehan [2001] ECR, I-6297 203, 192C-295–289/04 Vincenzo Manfredi v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni

[2006] ECR I-6619, 5 CMLR 17 292

table of cases xix






C-289/04P Showa Denko KK v. Commission [2006] ECR I-5859 203C-308/04P, C-308/94 SGLCarbon v.Commission [2006] ECR I-5977 203C-468/06 to C-478/06 Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline

AEVE [2008] ECR I-7139 203C-501, C-513, C-515 and C-519/06 GlaxoSmithKline Services v.

Commission [2009] ECR I-9291 199–200C-360/09 Pfleiderer v.BundeskartellamtNYR (14 June 2011) 243, 250, 291C-496/09 Italy v. Commission NYR (17 November 2011) 202

General Court/Court of First InstanceT-30/91 Solvay et al v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1775 191T-83/91Tetra Pak International SA v.Commission [1994] ECR II-755 203T-25/95 Cimenteries CBR v. Commission [2002] ECR II-491 6T-62/98 Volkswagen AG v. Commission [2000] ECR II-2707 187T-68/99 Società ItalianoVetro et al v.Commission [1992] ECR II-1552 191T-342/99 Airtours v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2585 192T-310/01 Schneider Electric SA v. Commission [2002] ECR II-4071

(Schneider/Legrand) 192T-502 and T-80/02 Tetra Laval v. Commission [2002] ECR II-4381

(Tetra Laval/Sidel) 192T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV et al v. Commission [2006] ECR II-

4987 203T-25/04 González y Díez SA v. Commission [2007] ECR II-3121 203T-69/04 Schunk GmbH and Schunk Kohlenstoff-Technik GmbH v.

Commission [2008] ECR II-2567 203

Germany

Reichgericht, Urtile von 4. Febuar 1897 (Sächlischen HolzstoffFabrikanten Verband) 38 RGZ 155 170, 171

Pfliederer v.Bundeskartellamt 51Gs 53/09AGBonn (18 January 2012) 243

United Kingdom

England

Attorney General of Australia v. Adelaide Steam Ship Co Ltd [1913]AC 781 215

Attorney General v. Associated Newspapers Ltd and News GroupNewspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 418 (Admin) 57

xx table of cases






British Airways Board v. Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58 219Christian and Others v. The Queen (Pitcairn Islands) [2006] UKPC 47,

[2007] 2 AC 400 [2007] 2 WLR 120 246Director General of Fair Trading v. Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd and

Another [1995] 1 AC 456, [1994] 3 WLR 1249 (HL) (aka In reSupply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No. 2)) 74, 230

H L Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v. T J Graham & Sons Ltd [1957] 1 QB159 60–2, 64

I B v. The Queen [2009] EWCA Crim 2575 212, 240In re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete [1992] QB 213 (CA) 74Jones v. North (1875) LR 19 EQ 426 215, 219Lennard’s Carrying Company Ltd v. Asiatic Petroleum Company Ltd

[1915] AC 705 58–9, 64Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v. Securities Commission

[1995] 2 AC 500 (PC) 64The Mogul Steamship Company, Limited v. McGregor Gow & Co., and

Others [1891] AC 25 (HL) 215, 217–18, 219National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC v. ABB Ltd et al. [2012]

EWHC 869 (Ch) 243North Western Salt Co. Ltd v. Electrolytic Alkali Co. Ltd [1913] 3 KB

422 215, 219Norris v. The Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL

16 214, 219, 251, 264, 265, 290, 309Pharmaceutical Society v. The London and Provincial Supply Association

Ltd (1879–80) LR 5 AC 857 57, 73R v. HM Coroner for East Kent, ex parte Spooner (1989) 88 Cr App R 10

(CA) 69R v. Huggins (1730) 93 ER 518, 2 Ld Raym 1574 (KB) 73R v. Hyam [1997] Crim LR 439 (CA) 238R v. ICR Haulage Ltd [1944] 1 All ER 691 (CA) 60R v. George and others (Southwark Crown Court, May 2010) 212,

240–2R v. George and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1148, [2010] 1WLR 2676

212, 240–2R v. Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 (CA) 238, 241, 246, 276, 309R v.Majeed, Butt, Asif and Amir (Southwark Crown Court, 3 November

2011) 46R v. P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991] 93 Cr App R 72

(CCC) 66

table of cases xxi






R v. Robertson [2006] EWCA Crim 1289 (CA) 238R v. Secretary of State forWork and Pensions (Respondent) ex parte Kehoe

(FC) (Appellant) [2005] UKHL 48, [2006] AC 42 218R v.Whittle, Allison and Brammar [2008] EWCA Crim 2560 212, 240Rawlings v. General Trading Co [1921] 1 KB 635 215, 219Tesco Stores Ltd v. Brent London Council [1993] 2 All ER 718 (QB)

73–4Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass [1972] AC 153 13, 53–4, 57, 61–7,

80, 81, 83, 87, 281, 282Re Yarn Spinners Agreement (No. 1) [1959] 1 WLR 154, [1959] 1 All ER

299 (RTCP) 230

Office of Fair Trading and Competition Appeal Tribunal Decisions

Price-fixing of Replica Football Kit (Case CP/0871/01) 1 August 2003 99Tobacco (Case CE/2596–03) 15 April 2010 99Tesco Stores Ltd, Tesco Holdings Ltd and Tesco Plc v. Office of Fair

Trading [2012] CAT 31 268

United States

Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett 746 So 2d 316, 1999–1 Trade Cases P72,559 (Ala 1999) 126

Albrecht v. Herald Co 390 US 145, 88 S Ct 869 (1968) 150American Needle, Inc. v.National Football League et al 560 US 183, 130 S

Ct 2201 (2010) 155Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States 288 US 344, 53 S Ct 471

(1933) 136–8, 140–3, 212, 305Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Association 457 US 332, 102 S Ct

2466 (1982) 149–51AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux. (2011) 563 US ____, 131 S Ct

1740 (April 27, 2011) 161Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States 246 US 231, 38 S Ct

242 (1918) 135–6, 147, 165Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems 441 US 1, 99 S Ct

1551 (1971) 147Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc et al 429 US 477, 97 S

Ct 690 (1977) 160

xxii table of cases






California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission 526 US 756,119 S Ct 1604 (1999) 155–6

Chicago Professional Sports Limited Partnership v. National BasketballAssociation 961 F 2d 667 (CA 7 1992) 155

City of Chicago v. Morales 527 US 41, 119 S Ct 1849 (1999) 5Connolly v.Union Sewer Pipe Co 184 US 540, 22 S Ct 431 (1902) 118–19Coperweld Corp v. Independence Tube Corp 467 US 752, 104 S Ct 2731

(1984) 138Dr Miles Medical Company v. John D Park and Sons Co 220 US 373, 31 S

Ct 370 (1911) 134, 156Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Service Inc 504 US 451, 112

S Ct 2072 (1992) 144Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. Federal Trade Commission 312

US 457, 312 US 668, 61 S Ct 703 (1941) 138, 143Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists 476 US 447,

98 S Ct 2009 (1986) 155Grenada Lumber Co et al v. State ex rel Attorney General 217 US 433, 30 S

Ct 53 (1910) 116Hannover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation 392 US 481, 88 S

Ct 2224 (1968) 160, 255Illinois Brick Co v. Illinois 431 US 720, 97 S Ct 2061 (1977) 160, 255In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation 643 F 2d 195 (CA5

1981) 160In Re SGL Carbon Corporation, Debtor 200 F 3d 154 (CA3 1999) 56In Re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation 184 FRD 506

(SDNY 1999) 159, 161International Harvester Co v. Missouri 234 US 199, 34 S Ct 859

(1914) 119International Salt Co v. United States 332 US 392, 68 S Ct 12

(1947) 144Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist No 2 v.Hyde, Jefferson Parish Hosp Dist No

2 v. Hyde 466 US 2, 104 S Ct 1551 (1984) 153Kiefer-Stewart Co v. Joseph E Seagram& Sons Inc 340 US 211, 71 S Ct 259

(1951) 150Kimbrough v. United States 552 US 85, 128 S Ct 558 (2007) 70Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 134 F 3d 1010 (CA10

1998) 155Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc v. PSKS Inc d b a Kay’s Kloset and

Kay’s Shoes 551 US 877, 127 S Ct 2705 (2007) 5, 135, 165

table of cases xxiii






Missouri v. Frye 566 US ___ (21 March 2012) 162Morris v. Ameritech Illinois 337 Ill App 3d 40, 271 Ill Dec 411, 785 NE 2d

62 (1st Dist 2003) 72Munn v. Illinois 94 US 113, 4 Otto 113 (1876) 121National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the

University of Oklahoma 468 US 85, 104 S Ct 2948 (1984) 149,151–5

National Society of Professional Engineers v.United States 435 US 679, 98S Ct 1355 (1978) 153, 155

New York Central and Hudson River Railway Co v. United States 212 US481, 29 S Ct 304 (1909) 71

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States 356 US 1, 78 S Ct 514(1958) 144–5, 150, 158, 165, 260, 305

Old Monastery Co. v. United States 147 F 2d 905 (CA4 1945) cert denied326 US 734 (1945) 72

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 293 US 388, 55 S Ct 241 (1935) 140Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co 166 F

254 (CA2 1908) 126Pepper v.United States 562US ___, 131 S Ct 1229 (2March 2011) 70, 162Reiter v. Sonotone Corp 442 US 330, 99 S Ct 2326 (1979) 154, 165, 260Richardson v. Buhl 6 LRA 457, 77 Mich 632, 43 NW 1102 (Mich SC

1889) 122, 123Schechter Poultry Corp v.United States 295US 495, 55 SCt 837 (1935) 221Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States 337 US 293, 69 S Ct 1051

(1949) 144Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States, see United States v Standard

Oil Co of IndianaStandard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States 221 US 1, 31 S Ct 504

(1911) 132–4, 143–5, 154, 156Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. Missouri 218 Mo 1, 116 SW 902 (SC Mo

1908), 224 US 270, 32 S Ct 406 (1911) 45, 116State ex inf Crow v. Armour Packing Co. 173 Mo 356, 73 SW 645 (1903)

117State ex re Astor v. Schlitz Brewing Co. 104 Tenn 715, 59 SW 1033 (Tenn

SC 1900) 118Straight Side Basket Corporation v. Webster Basket Co 4 F Supp 644

(WDNY, August 14, 1933) 138Taylor v. Blanchard 13 Allen 370, 95 Mass 370, 1866 WL 6386 (Mass SC

1866) 114

xxiv table of cases






Tigner v. Texas 310 US 141, 60 S Ct 879 (1940) 119Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States 341 US 593, 71 S Ct 971

(1951) 145United States v Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. 85 F 271 (1898), 175 US 211,

20 S Ct 96 (1899) 131–2, 145United States v. Aluminum Co. of America 148 F 2d 416 (CA2 1945) 262United States v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation

433 F 2d 173 (CA3 1970) 73United States v. Andreas 216 F 3d 645 (CA7 2000) 107United States v. Arnold, Schwinn and Co. et al 388 US 365, 87 S Ct

1856 (1967) 51United States v. Automated Medical Laboratories Inc 770 F 2d 399

(CA4 1985) 72United States v. Bank of New England 821 F 2d 844 (CA1 1987), cert

denied 484 US 943 (1987) 67United States v. Booker 543 US 220, 125 S Ct 738 (2005) 70, 162United States v. Brown University 5 F 3d 658 (CA3 1993) 155United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Inc. 159 F 2d 169 (CA2 1947) 56United States v. Carter 311 F 2d 934 (CA6 1963), cert denied 373 US 915

(1963) 72United States v. E CKnight Co. 156 US 1, 15 S Ct 249 (1895) 125, 129, 132United States v.Hilton Hotels 467 F 2d 1000 (CA9 1972), cert denied 409

US 1125 (1973) 72United States v. Joint Traffic Association 171 US 505, 19 S Ct 2 (1898)

131, 134United States v. Lopez 514 US 549, 115 S Ct 1624 (1995) 126United States v. Sealy Inc 388 US 350, 87 S Ct 1847 (1967) 145United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 US 150, 60 S Ct 811

(1940) 140United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana 155 F 305 (N D Ill 1907),

reversed Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States 164 F 376, 90CCA 364 (CA 7 1908) cert denied United States v. Standard Oil Co.212 US 579, 29 S Ct 689, 53 L Ed 659 (1909) 45–6

United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers Of California 138 F 3d 961(DCCA 1998) 72

United States v. Swift and Company 196 US 375, 25 S Ct 276(1905) 117

United States v. Topco Associates Inc 405 US 596, 92 S Ct 1126 (1972)145–7, 151, 305

table of cases xxv






United States v. Trans Missouri Freight Association 53 F 440 (1892), 58 F58 (1893), 17 S Ct 540 (1897) 126, 131

United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. 273 US 392, 47 S Ct 377 (1927)138–40, 150, 157, 304

United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 882 F 2d 656(CA2 1989) 72

United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation 110 F Supp 295 (DMass 1953), aff’d, 347 US 521 (1954) 160, 262

United States v. Van Schaick et al 134 F 592, 602 (CCNY 1904) 73Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V Trinko 540 US 398,

124 S Ct 872 (2004) 165, 289, 304Wabash, St Louis and Pacific Railway v. Illinois 118 US 557, 7 S Ct 4

(1886) 120–1Waters-Pierce Oil Co v. State 48 Tex Civ App 162, 106 SW 918 (Tex Civ

App 1907), 212 US 86, 29 S Ct 22 (1909) 115–16West v. Randall 2 Mason 181, 29 Fed Cas 718 (CCDRI 1820) 161

xxvi table of cases






TABLE OF TREATIES, STATUTES ANDLEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS

Treaties

European

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2010] OJC85/1 5, 13, 97, 174, 180, 193, 194, 200, 203

Protocol No. 27 on the internal market and competition, [2008] OJC115/309 202

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and theTreaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13December 2007 [2007] OJ C306/1 197, 200–4, 207, 306–9

Other

Havana Charter of the International Trade Organization in the Final Actand Related Documents of United Nations Conference on Trade andEmployment held at Havana, Cuba from November 21, 1947 toMarch 24, 1948, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/havana_e.pdf 225–6

North American Free Trade Agreement 32 ILM 289, 605 (1993) 256, 270

Statutes

Canada

Competition Act RS 1985 c C-34 5, 255, 270(Ontario) Class Proceedings Act 1992 SO 1992 c 6 161

England and Wales

Coal Act 1938 223, 224Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 223

xxvii






Coal Mines Act 1930 212, 220Companies Act 2006 55Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 102Competition Act 1980 230–1Competition Act 1998 96, 102, 212, 231–3, 236, 243, 245, 247Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order

2000 (SI 2000/309) (as amended by the Competition Act 1998(Determination of Turnover for Penalties) (Amendment) Order2004 (SI 2004/1259)) 96

Enterprise Act 2002 3, 15, 101, 102, 211, 233, 234, 238–9, 244, 247,249, 252, 264–5, 294, 309, 311

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform HC Bill 2012–13 Bill 61 xv, 16,244–50, 264–5, 289–90, 309–10

Import Duties Act 1932 224Insolvency Act 1985 56Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 60Merchant Shipping Act 1894 58Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948 212, 227Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 237Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 237Trade Descriptions Act 1968 61, 64

United States

Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Extension Act(ACPERA) Pub L No. 108–237, § 213, 118 Stat 666, 667 (2004)codified 15 USC § 1 162–3

Clayton Act 15 USC § 12–22, 19 USC §§ 52–53 3, 143–4, 158–9, 221,261, 268

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 Pub L 98–473, 98 Stat 1976, S1762 162

Currency Transaction Reporting Act 31 USCA §§ 5311–22 67Interstate Commerce Act (Ch 104, 25 Stat 379 February 4, 1887) 120National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) 48 Stat 195, 221Sherman Act 15 USC §§ 1–7 1, 3, 5, 14, 72–3, 97, 107, 115, 118, 120,

122–5, 128–9, 131–3, 138–40, 142–8, 150–7, 159, 165, 205, 211, 221,227, 236, 255, 259–62, 268, 270, 283, 289, 304–7

Tennessee, Antitrust Statute, Acts 1897 Chapter 94 117US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 USCA 160–1

xxviii treaties, statutes and legislative instruments






Other Jurisdictions

Australia, Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 69–70France, Code de Commerce 5Germany, Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (GWB) (Act

against Restraints of Competition, ARC) 5, 179Hong Kong, Ordinance No. 4 of 2012 259Indonesia Law, 5 of 1999 259Ireland, Competition Act 2002 315Mexico, Ley Federal De Compentencia Económica 270

EU – Regulations

Regulation No. 17 First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 ofthe Treaty, OJ 21/02/1962 pp. 0204 – 0211, English special edition:Series I Chapter 1959–1962 p. 0087 181, 195, 205, 231, 268

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on theimplementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L1/1 193–5, 232, 243, 256

Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the controlof concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation)[2004] OJ L24/1 193

EU – Guidelines and Notices

Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant toArticle 23(2)(a) of Regulation No. 1/2003 (2006/C 210/02) [1996]OJ C210/2 96, 195

Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines incartel cases [1996] OJ C298/17 101, 163, 194, 196

Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartelcases [1996] OJ C207/4 163, 194

Guidelines on themethod of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2)of Regulation No. 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty [1998]OJ C9/3 195

Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines incartel cases [2002] OJ C45/3 101, 163, 194–6

Commission notice on the co-operation between the Commission andthe courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81and 82 EC [2004] OJ C104/54 194

treaties, statutes and legislative instruments xxix






Commission notice on cooperation within the Network of CompetitionAuthorities [2004] OJ C 101/43 194

Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty [2004] OJC101/97 204

Commission notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines incartel cases [2006] OJ C298/17 101, 163, 196

xxx treaties, statutes and legislative instruments




