<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Lupton Fawcett LLP - Openbrief » Competition Law &amp; Regulatory</title>
	
	<link>http://www.openbrief.com</link>
	<description>An update service from Lupton Fawcett LLP</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory" /><feedburner:info uri="openbrief_competition-law-regulatory" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:feedFlare href="?format=xml" src="http://www.logos.com/media/blog/feedburner/browser_chicklet.png">Subscribe with Your Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Misleading Advertising - a recent ASA decision</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/x5KzKj-v5o0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Defence &amp; Prosecution]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=802</guid>
		<description>The ASA Council (Non-broadcast) has recently held a retailer in breach of the CAP Code for having insufficient stock to meet anticipated demand.  It found that internet retailer, Simply Be, has breached the CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 16.4 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.1 (Availability), by an email it [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/x5KzKj-v5o0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Innocent parent liable for competition law breach by subsidiary</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/2PGHAn0X_wk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/24/innocent-parent-liable-for-competition-law-breach-by-subsidiary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=545</guid>
		<description>On the 21st September 2009, the European Commission issued a press release publicising the ECJ decision in the long running AKZO Nobel case.
Background 
The press release states &amp;#8220;.. On 9 December 2004, the Commission fined Akzo Nobel NV and four of its subsidiaries jointly and severally €20.99 million for price fixing, market sharing and agreeing [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/2PGHAn0X_wk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/24/innocent-parent-liable-for-competition-law-breach-by-subsidiary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/24/innocent-parent-liable-for-competition-law-breach-by-subsidiary/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Wax producers fined for price fixing</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/h_rFJCsY8pk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/10/13/wax-producers-fined-for-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:33:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=257</guid>
		<description>The European Commission has fined several businesses operating across the EU for cartel activities in fixing the price of paraffin waxes. The cartel was active from 1992 until 2005 when surprise raids by the competition authorities in April 2005 effectively brought the cartel to an end. Those involved included ExxonMobil, Repsol, Shell and Total.  Shell [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/h_rFJCsY8pk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/10/13/wax-producers-fined-for-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/10/13/wax-producers-fined-for-price-fixing/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Five face jail over price fixing</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/Z4r1_QeVt-o/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/five-face-jail-over-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=215</guid>
		<description>The OFT announced late last week that it has charged five individuals with offences under the Enterprise Act 2002 in relation to price fixing in the UK market for passeger transport services provided by British Airways and Virgin.
Readers will recall that this story first hit the headlines some time ago and that there have been [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/Z4r1_QeVt-o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/five-face-jail-over-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/five-face-jail-over-price-fixing/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Cartel Offence Results in Three Jail Sentences</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/JUOQcV3jNlo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/10/cartel-offence-results-in-three-jail-sentences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=189</guid>
		<description>Last month three UK businessmen were sentenced to imprisonment as part of the first ever criminal cartel convictions.
The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the first cartel offence five years ago under UK law. A person may be found guilty of the cartel offence if they dishonestly agree with one or more persons to engage in a [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/JUOQcV3jNlo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/10/cartel-offence-results-in-three-jail-sentences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/10/cartel-offence-results-in-three-jail-sentences/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Procurement regulations hit the courts again</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/JuvgDDOBveU/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/09/procurement-regulations-hit-the-courts-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description>The High Court in England considered the application of The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 in a tender process by the London Borough of Newham. In Lettings International Limited -v- London Borough of Newham [2008] EWHC 1583 (QB) the court ruled that in the tender process it adopted Newham had acted unfairly, without the requisite transparency, and had [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/JuvgDDOBveU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/09/procurement-regulations-hit-the-courts-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/07/09/procurement-regulations-hit-the-courts-again/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Too Keen To Be Green?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/q4S08LXhPB4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/05/09/too-keen-to-be-green/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 14:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=135</guid>
		<description>The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently upheld a complaint against Renault for claims made in relation to the eco-friendliness of its Twingo Dynamique car. It was found the claim made that the Twingo was “economical, ecological” could not be substantiated. The claim was made in an advertisement and the issue in question was whether Renault [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/q4S08LXhPB4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/05/09/too-keen-to-be-green/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/05/09/too-keen-to-be-green/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Another cartel busted, more huge fines paid</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/TaI__mrH9Tw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-cartel-busted-more-huge-fines-paid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:42:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-cartel-busted-more-huge-fines-paid/</guid>
		<description>The European Commission has published a summary of its November 2007 decision, in which it found that Sony, Fuji and Maxell had fixed prices for professional videotapes sold in Europe, contrary to European competition law.  The Commission imposed total fines of EUR74.79 million.The Commission found that Sony, Fuji and Maxell were engaged in a [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/TaI__mrH9Tw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-cartel-busted-more-huge-fines-paid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-cartel-busted-more-huge-fines-paid/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Another fine mess you’ve got me into, also known as competition by an ex-employee</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/oP6siYF3fww/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-fine-mess-youve-got-me-into-also-known-as-competition-by-an-ex-employee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-fine-mess-youve-got-me-into-also-known-as-competition-by-an-ex-employee/</guid>
		<description>The legal position between an ex-employee and his employer when the ex-employee sets up in competition has once again been before the courts. The issue, inevitably, is has the ex-employee done anything wrong in competing and, in particular, has the employee obtained an advantage in his or her competition with the former employer by taking [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/oP6siYF3fww" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-fine-mess-youve-got-me-into-also-known-as-competition-by-an-ex-employee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/04/03/another-fine-mess-youve-got-me-into-also-known-as-competition-by-an-ex-employee/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Software owners have a monopoly in software tech support ?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/jVrQjDWQVWI/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/21/software-owners-have-a-monopoly-in-software-tech-support/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/21/software-owners-have-a-monopoly-in-software-tech-support/</guid>
		<description>It is often the case that a business user of software finds that it is tied into a support and maintenance contract, perhaps renewing annually with fees rising year on year. The frustration is that the support and maintenance contract could be put out to tender and the price most likely be reduced if the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/jVrQjDWQVWI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/21/software-owners-have-a-monopoly-in-software-tech-support/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/21/software-owners-have-a-monopoly-in-software-tech-support/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Synthetic rubber cartel - fessing up pays off for Bayer</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/-7tjM-YQ61c/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/23/synthetic-rubber-cartel-fessing-up-pays-off-for-bayer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/23/synthetic-rubber-cartel-fessing-up-pays-off-for-bayer/</guid>
		<description>This is a classic example of a cartel operated through a trade association and what can happen when the competition authorities investigate. It also shows the real benefits of being the first to inform and claim leniency.
On the 12th January 2008 the EU Competition Commission published its decision to impose huge fines on the participants [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/-7tjM-YQ61c" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/23/synthetic-rubber-cartel-fessing-up-pays-off-for-bayer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/23/synthetic-rubber-cartel-fessing-up-pays-off-for-bayer/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Which? wins replica shirt price fixing case for consumers</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~3/UO-4Bs-FTEw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/10/which-wins-replica-shirt-price-fixing-case-for-consumers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/10/which-wins-replica-shirt-price-fixing-case-for-consumers/</guid>
		<description>Which? took a &amp;#8216;class&amp;#8217; action on behalf of some consumers against JJB Sports seeking damages for breach of UK competition law. The breach involved price fixing. JJB were fined £6.7 million by the Competition Authorities, and its appeal was unsuccessful.
Consequently, JJB settled the &amp;#8216;class&amp;#8217; action claim agreeing to pay the consumers who joined in the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_competition-law-regulatory/~4/UO-4Bs-FTEw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/10/which-wins-replica-shirt-price-fixing-case-for-consumers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/10/which-wins-replica-shirt-price-fixing-case-for-consumers/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

