EU Competition Policy: Vitamins Cartel Case
The turnover of Microsoft as for 2010 is estimated at $62.484 billion . This is more than the budget of an average less-developed country. It is argued that multinational companies are now gaining power over the governments and placing themselves above the law. With huge profits, latest technologies, big connections, global companies became extremely influential. However, European Union proved that it still controls the enterprises regardless their size and possible influence on governments in order to protect the interests of consumers. The famous examples will include the case of Microsoft, vitamins cartel, GE. EU single market represents one of the world biggest markets with about 510 million consumers . That is the reason why European Commission was given an authority to manage EU’s competition policy.
European Competition Policy consists of 3 broad branches: antitrust/cartel policy, merger control and state aid. Antitrust sector controls behavior of companies, merger sector safeguards the market structure, state aid – prevents of undue intervention through government. Anti-trust policy is represented by 2 articles from Treaty of Rome (1957): Article 81 prohibit any agreements between enterprises which harm consumers through eliminating competition and trade between member-states and Article 82 bans abuse of dominant market position . The aim of EU competition policy is to encourage competition and develop European single market.
There is a number of ways in which commission fights against anti-competitive behavior, starting from investigation and in case enough evidence is gathered, companies participating in the cartel receive fines proportionate to the value of sales, ...
... middle of paper ...
...cartels (Hoffmann-La Roche and BASF as ‘leaders’ were engage in almost all of the cartels, while some other companies listed below were involved in 1 cartel only), the fines were distributed as follows:
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland): € 462 million,
BASF AG (Germany): € 296.16 million,
Aventis SA (France): € 5.04 million,
Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV (Netherlands): € 9.10 million,
Merck KgaA (Germany): € 9.24 million,
Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (Japan): €23.4 million,
Eisai Co Ltd (Japan): € 13.23 million,
Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd (Japan): € 37.05 million.
The rest 5 other companies, which are Lonza AG (Germany), Kongo Chemical Co Ltd (Japan), Sumitomo Chemical Co Ltd (Japan), Sumika Fine Chemicals Ltd (Japan) and Tanabe Saiyaku Co Ltd (Japan) did not received fines since they shut down the cartels before the investigation started.
The Cali Cartel is the largest, richest, and most complex producers and distributors of cocaine. The cartel concentrates almost entirely in cocaine. Over time they have developed an extremely large and sophisticated distribution system and have generated an extraordinary amount of wealth. Because of their financial stability, they are able to buy planes, ships and warehouses as well as bribe government officials and pay the top lawyers and strongest mercenary groups for protection.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Charges Johnson & Johnson With Foreign Bribery. 2011. Web. 7 February 2014. .
According to antitrust laws put in place by the government,the unfair competition and the act of setting premium prices without considering the buying power of the suppliers is condemned. Antitrust laws discourages monopolistic competition which elimi...
America's century-old antitrust law is increasingly irrelevant to our current worldwide information technology market. This law is outdated, in accordance to the modern Microsoft situation, because in the past there wasn't technology as there is now. Recently the government has been accusing Microsoft as being a monopoly. "Techno-Optimists" claim that "efforts by government to promote competition by restraining high-tech firms that acquire market power will only stifle competition." Some analysts disagree. They concede that dynamic technology makes it tough to sustain market power. Still, consumers will want compatible equipment, which will lead them to buy whatever product other consumers are using, even if the product is inferior.
It is said that name-brand prescription drugs in Canada cost approximately 40% less than they do in America. But it is illegal for the transport of drugs from Canada to America. Why? It is because Pharmaceuticals are simply greedy and prey on victims that are in need of their products to survive. It makes it hard for large households on a budget to purchase drugs to keep healthy. The way pharmaceutical companies look at their clients is like this: It is a life or death situation for them so the customers have to buy it in order to survive. According to the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry, expectedly, made it at the top of the list of the most profitable. The top seven pharmaceutical companies took in more profit-money than the top seven media companies, the top seven airline companies, the top seven oil companies, and the top seven car manufacture companies. (…cost so much, CNN) The profits of pharmaceutical companies are outrageous and extreme. There are many reasons to why these companies are greedily taking advantage of customers. The number one reason is because people who are need of these prescriptions have no other choice but to purchase them.
When a chemical company called Krane Chemicals poisons the ground water with chemical toxic waste hundreds of people die of cancer or get seriously ill. When Mary Grace and Wes Payton win the case the against the company, the shares drop dramatically. Carl Trudeau, who owns an impressive amount of shares looses over one billion dollars in one day, an...
To answer this question I will firstly explain how EU law became incorporated within the member states I will then explain the various types of EU legislation's in circulation. This is important to define as the various types of methods will involve different enforcement procedures. Finally I will explain how EU law is enforced and the ways EU law will effect the member state and individual businesses. I will summarise my findings at the end of the essay, this will give details of all the key ideas I have ut across.
Fog, B. 1956. How are Cartel Prices Determined? The Journal of Industrial Economics. 5(1): 16-23
Martinez, Barbara “Firms Paid to Trim Drug Costs Also Toil for Drug Makers” The Wall Street
When the Cali cartel helped the presidential campaign of Ernesto Samper, it gave them a new reason to get involved in politics. Politics helped get away with the law by knowing the slips and cracks in the government by having someone on the other side. With advantages like these, the cartel was walking over the government officials. This led to the organization of hiring and training top engineers to design equipment that could not be bugged. Also, by studying the moves of US Prosecutors and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration). When government officials or political leaders found out about this corporation, the cartel would offer money and luxuries if they collaborated with their scheme moves and to stay quiet. This would only benefit
... of remaining fair with a collection of antitrust laws. The laws ensure that there is not monopolization of products, price fixing to destroy competitors and over charging the consumer.
There once was a time where dinosaurs roamed the earth. Some dinosaurs were stronger than others, making them the superior creatures. The Tyrannosaurus Rex is not that different from a corporate empire; both T-Rexes and monopolies ruled the land with little to no competition. They devoured the weak, crushed the opposition, and made sure they were king, but then, all of a sudden, they were extinct. The giants that once were predators became prey, whether it be a natural disaster or the Antitrust laws they no longer had control over the whole. The Antitrust laws have had a positive impact on American society through restricting monopolies; ensuring that no single business can control a market then using that power to exploit customers, protecting the public from price fixing, and producing new higher quality and innovative products through competition.
Microsoft, currently one of the world’s biggest and most influential software companies, was found in 1975 by William Gates and Paul Allen.[1] It quickly positioned itself as a leader in the software community and due to the strength growth of its user base for the Windows operating system and numerous other products, it became both widely popular and widely hated. Many consumers love the suite of products that Microsoft offers because they are easy to use, are widely supported, and have many applications written specifically to for them. On the other hand, there are many who dislike Microsoft, claiming that their policies lead to an uncompetitive market and that their practices are unethical. In recent years many court cases, including a major anti-trust suit have been brought against Microsoft. This paper aims to focus on the issue of Microsoft’s product pricing structure and to discuss the issues that have arisen because of it.
First, the structure of the framework strongly supports an extensive analysis of the directive and of the context in which it was formulated and implemented. Second, each element is important when trying to clarify how a policy is created in the European Union and the impact of the policy on businesses. The 'issue' element provides an opportunity to explain the content of the directive. The 'actors', 'interests','arenas' and 'assets' elements describe and illustrate the power play involved in European Union policy formulation and implementation and the place occupied by businesses. The 'information' element demonstrates the ever increasing importance that knowledge has within the European Union and how it can be used by businesses. Finally, the design of a non-market strategy supported by the (IA)3 framework enables a firm to become active and not only adapt to a certain policy but also gain an opportunity to influence the environment within which it is
Competition law in the European Union has developed from being an uncertain preoccupation of a few economists, lawyers and officials to one of the leading competition law system in the globe. Nonetheless, in agreement with most commentators, there are inherent flaws within the EU Commission’s procedures. This paper aims to provide an account of concerns in the current system, drawing comments from scholars and EU officials in order to demonstrate both benefits and shortcomings of the system. An overview of the legal and policy debate of the current EU Competition enforcement will be presented as the introduction. Policy concerns such as prosecutorial bias and self-incrimination in enforcement powers will be the main subjects for the purpose of this paper, followed by analysis of the EU commission structure, in particular checks and balances and the hearing process, both of which have been claimed being incompatible with the ECHR. A comparison with the US Antitrust system will also be paralleled through out this essay in order to demonstrate a clearer examination. This essay will conclude with the Commission’s flaws that have effected on the upcoming UK competition law reforms.