Latest mega-fine shows the OFT means business
For years competition policy in the UK seemed to be a case of plenty of talk but little action. But the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) move last month in fining Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) a hefty £28.6m for breaching competition law is the latest in a series of recent reminders that the years of hot air are finally translating into a more robust enforcement policy.
April 14, 2010 at 06:14 AM
4 minute read
£28m fine for RBS in price-sharing case underlines tougher competition regime
For years competition policy in the UK seemed to be a case of plenty of talk but little action. But the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) move last month in fining Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) a hefty £28.6m for breaching competition law is the latest in a series of recent reminders that the years of hot air are finally translating into a more robust enforcement policy.
As Slaughter and May competition partner Michael Rowe acknowledges: "The OFT is increasingly seen as a robust and effective regulator. In the boardroom over the last few years people have sat up and taken notice. Directors can no longer afford to ignore competition law – the financial penalties and risk of imprisonment are too severe."
The RBS decision was notable for several reasons, marking the first major case against a financial services company, a sector that has been in the regulator's sights for a long time but, until recently, with little to show for it. The case, which began two years ago and involved the illegal sharing of pricing information on commercial loans to solicitors and accountants between two individuals at Barclays and RBS, will be viewed as symbolic.
For one, the high level of the fine has attracted attention, given that the OFT was only pursuing data-sharing rather than a full-blown conspiracy to fix prices. Also significant is the use of the OFT's leniency policy, which saw Barclays gain immunity from action in return for providing the initial tip-off, a tactic that echoes established US-style enforcement.
Competition advisers also see the case as underlining the OFT's desire to achieve an effective deterrent by putting together the kind of high-profile cases that will hit the headlines. This has been particularly evident with anti-cartel activity, most prominently when British Airways (BA) was hit last year by a £121.5m fine for price-fixing fuel surcharges after industry rival Virgin turned whistleblower. A criminal trial involving four BA defendants kicked off in court this week, the first time that the OFT has used powers gained to bring such cases.
Other cartel investigations have resulted in the OFT last year fining 103 construction companies a total of £129.5m for bid rigging activity, while the regulator is due to report its findings on two cartel investigations within the dairy and tobacco industries within weeks. Investigations in this area span an eclectic mix of industries and are perhaps indicative of the commitment from the OFT and Brussels to stamp out anti-competitive behaviour while focusing on issues key to consumers. By consensus, the OFT is as focused on putting pressure on entire industries through high-profile investigations as it is individual regulatory breaches where it can be argued that consumers are suffering.
There is also the expectation that there will be an increasing number of follow-on actions from private companies or individuals seeking redress where there have been regulatory findings of cartel behaviour.
For many competition veterans, this underlying shift towards a tougher enforcement regime looks set to remain regardless of which party wins the general election, with the Conservative Party in recent weeks floating the idea of a new investigation into the financial services industry. As Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's Deirdre Trapp comments: "[The OFT] has had a pretty tough agenda for the past three to four years and it seems that in this economic environment they are still keeping in line with that agenda and won't be put off."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250