Thomas Sharpe QC and James Flynn QC invited me to speak to the Lincoln’s Inn Eurogroup on the relationship between public and private antitrust enforcement. This is the first main section of the speech. on the damages directive and the protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions. The others are: Publications and the content of decisions; Single and continuous infringement. For those who prefer to read paper documents, I attach PDFs of the full prepared remarks and the handout. In terms of setting the policy framework, as you all know the Damages Directive was agreed between the Council and European Parliament earlier this year and formally adopted earlier this month. I will not go through all of the details, but want to highlight […]
Thomas Sharpe QC and James Flynn QC invited me to speak in November to the Lincoln’s Inn Eurogroup on the relationship between public and private antitrust enforcement. I’ve posted the main sections of the speech here: The Damages Directive and the protection of leniency submissions and settlement statements; Publications and the content of decisions; Single and continuous infringement. For those who prefer to read paper documents, I attach PDFs of the prepared remarks and the handout.
A small point, but one worth repeating. Competition law works to benefit society, not necessarily investors in individual companies. This story may be apocryphal but I heard of a headline in an – investor focussed – newspaper, after an air crash that focussed more on the share price of the airline than on the number of the dead. I can’t think of a better example of an investor perspective trumping a consumer one. Competition law is on the side of consumers (as a whole) and society (as a whole), not necessarily of investors (in individual companies). Competitive markets give consumers the best choice at the lowest price. Markets as a whole will grow, though individual companies will have to compete harder […]
The final text of the Council and Parliament Damages Directive protects corporate leniency statements and settlement submissions. There are two small caveats. First, national judges have the right to verify that corporate leniency statements are in fact that, and are not concealing other information. Second, settlement submissions that the parties subsequently withdraw are potentially accessible to claimants. These caveats are minor, however, and unlikely to have any real impact in practice. No settlement submission has ever been withdrawn, and it’s not entirely clear what other information could be concealed in a corporate leniency statement.
