R E L A T E D   C O N T E N T
ADVERTISEMENT

Counting the cost of price fixing

Neil Hodge, Financial Director 28 Jan 2008

Companies are being urged to comply or pay the price as regulator turns up the pressure on anti-trust abuses

ADVERTISEMENT

Price fixing has only been a criminal offence in the UK for the past five years, so corporate experience with the new law is still relatively limited. Moreover, lawyers believe that the willingness of the UK’s competition regulator to investigate alleged abuses and bring criminal prosecutions means that UK companies need to learn how to comply – and fast.

Michael Crooks, a partner at law firm Thomas Eggar, says that the definition of price fixing and anti-competitive behaviour is wider than one might think. “The offence is committed even if the ‘fixing’ is by way of unwritten, informal or non-binding understandings,” says Crooks.

“Anti-competitive behaviour includes price-fixing, market sharing arrangements, collusion in tenders, some refusals to supply, exchanging sensitive information with competitors whether through trade associations or otherwise, dictating to customers the prices at which they may sell on to third parties, and some non-compete obligations,” he says.

Complying with the law
David Whibley, consultant at law firm Morgan Cole, says showing the regulator that the company has proper controls in place to promote compliance with the legislation is key to avoid falling foul of the law. As the UK is one of the few jurisdictions in the European Union that deems price-fixing a criminal offence, the OFT has set out the following guidelines:
• Demonstrate the company’s commitment to ensuring compliance. This might take the tangible form of a presentation to the board on the law, and a statement in a board minute making clear that the company recognises the importance of competition law;
• Establish policies and procedures that facilitate compliance. In appropriate cases, an audit to investigate the status of the company is a good idea;
• Arrange education or training of all personnel in the company who need to understand the law and the importance of compliance, particularly for sales and marketing people; and
• Perform an ongoing evaluation and assessment of the success of compliance policy, such as periodic reviews of the programme.

Peter James, a partner at law firm Clarkslegal, emphasises that the OFT guidelines remind companies that “all relevant staff should receive regular training in competition compliance”, including any employees who have any direct contact with competitors, such as sales teams, logistics managers, business unit managers and any other staff who have access to the prices charged or tenders submitted by the company. “Any situation in which an exchange of company data is likely to occur should be regarded as a risk area,” he says.

As part of the compliance policy, James recommends that companies could consider issuing questionnaires to relevant staff, covering such issues as whether they have ever had any involvement in any informal or formal discussions or arrangements with competitors regarding price matching or anything similar, and whether they have ever shared information included in a tender submitted by the company with a third party.

But directors should not rely wholly on a compliance programme, warns Jeremy Robinson, senior associate in the international competition group at solicitors Bird & Bird. “Cartel activity is often covert and dishonest, and there may be some who, knowing the law, decide to take risks by flouting it. These people’s activities would not be stopped by compliance alone,” says Robinson. “Directors should be aware of this possibility and take care to know what is happening on their watch. For this reason, it is often helpful to undertake regular audits or ‘mock dawn raids’ of the business, not merely to know how the company would react if there were a real dawn raid, but to learn more about what business activity is going on,” he says.

Blow the whistle early
Robinson also says that companies should blow the whistle at the earliest opportunity once any hint of cartel involvement is discovered – even if not initiated by the company itself. “There is a difficult situation where a company receives unsolicited, commercially-confidential data which would be useful in forming a cartel. If the company does nothing, it may be at risk later of being found to have participated in the cartel. Here, the burden may fall on the company to prove that it could not have been influenced by receipt of confidential data. In that situation, the safest course is to notify the anti-trust authorities, seeking immunity from penalties,” he says.

High-profile cases
• In July 2007 the Office of Fair Trading fined British Airways £121.5m after the airline admitted colluding with Virgin Atlantic to fix the prices of fuel surcharges.

Companies can be fined up to 10% of their global turnover, but Virgin Atlantic, which blew the whistle on the anti-competitive practices, escaped any financial penalty. Criminal investigations regarding some of the individuals involved are still pending, says the OFT. If convicted, the maximum penalty could be five years in jail plus a fine, as set out under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
• The regulator has also accused the UK’s largest supermarkets of colluding with five leading dairy producers to raise the prices of milk, butter and/or cheese between 2002
and 2003, skimming UK consumers to the tune of £270m. Asda, Dairy Crest, Safeway (pre-acquisition by Morrisons), Sainsbury’s, The Cheese Company (formerly Glanbia Foods Ltd) and Wiseman soon admitted their involvement and in December were rewarded with a reduced, collective fine not exceeding £116m. Arla Foods may avoid a penalty if it continues to co-operate. However, the OFT is continuing its case against Morrisons, Tesco and Lactalis McLelland.
• Three British businessmen were extradited from the US and charged in December 2007 with various Enterprise Act cartel offences including price fixing relating to marine hose.
• Four global glass companies, including UK group Pilkington, were fined a total of e487m by the European Commission in November 2007 for price-fixing.

Useful links
For more information on potential prosecutions and ongoing cases, visit the Office of Fair Trading at www.oft.gov.uk
To see the Enterprise Act 2002 in full, go to www.opsi.gov.uk/acts and type Enterprise Act 2002 in the search field

M A R K E T P L A C E
Sponsored links
| Goodman Masson Recruitment
My client, a leading Insurance company based in the city is looking for an enthusiastic and proactive management Year end accountant to join their Central finance team based in the Central London head office. You ... more >
| Goodman Masson Recruitment
My client, a leading financial services organisation based in Central London, have a fantastic opportunity for an interim financial accountant. Working within the UK retail accounting team you will be responsible for manipulation of budget ... more >
| Grainger West Ltd
My client, a leading public sector organisation, is once again working at the heart of government initiatives such as Olympic 2012 Developments, the Crossrail implementation and funding for Anti-Terrorism measures. It is looking for a ... more >
| Goodman Masson Recruitment
My client, a unique and specialist global client services firm is looking for a fully qualified Internal Auditor to join their established London based team. The position is specifically focused on treasury operations, in particular ... more >
More Jobs in Finance

Job zone
Job of the week
Related jobs
Search for a job
 
Try our Advanced search