United Kingdom: Cartel Enforcement

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the primary enforcement authority in the UK for civil cartels under article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the equivalent Chapter I prohibition under section 2 of the UK Competition Act 1998 (CA98)1, as well as criminal cartels under section 188 of the UK Enterprise Act 2002 (EA). Under the criminal cartel offence, the CMA may seek the disqualification for up to 15 years of directors of companies that have infringed competition law.

Following criticism from the National Audit Office (NAO) in February 20162 as regards the number of cartel enforcement cases brought by the UK regulators compared to their German and French counterparts, the second half of 2016 and early 2017 saw a lot of enforcement activity. In a speech published on 9 November 2016, the CMA's executive director for enforcement, Michael Grenfell, said that while the CMA needs to do ‘more cases, more quickly', this ‘must not be at the expense of the fairness and rigour we have worked so hard to achieve.'3

In March 2017, the CMA also launched a campaign to clamp down on cartel activity by encouraging whistle-blowing.4 The campaign encourages people who have witnessed illegal activity to report it, by offering a reward of up to £100,000, as well as promising them anonymity.

Civil enforcement under article 101 TFEU/section 2 CA98

In the second half of 2016 and in early 2017, the CMA issued infringement decisions in the light fittings sector, the furniture sector, the commercial refrigeration sector, the bathroom fittings sector, the galvanised steel tanks sector, the modelling sector, and the sector for online sales of posters and frames. In relation to the online sales of posters and frames infringement, the CMA, for the first time, accepted a disqualification undertaking from the managing director of the company that had committed the infringement.5 Of these eight decisions, six were issued pursuant to settlement agreements.6 In the same period, the CMA issued a number of statements of objections (that is, preliminary findings) as part of investigations in the pharmaceutical, residential estate agency, laundry services, leisure, and sports equipment sectors.

Damages actions against payment schemes

On 14 July 2016, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) found for Sainsbury's, a UK retailer, in an action for damages against MasterCard, in the UK's first stand-alone damages action.7 The claim by Sainsbury's was issued pursuant to a European Commission decision (upheld by the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, and together with the GC, the European Court)) finding that MasterCard's multilateral interchange fees (MIFs), governing fee payments between banks relating to transactions made using payment cards, breached Chapter I CA98 (Chapter I) and article 101 TFEU (article 101). Sainsbury's claimed damages from from MasterCard in relation to losses suffered as a result of the MasterCard UK MIF in force from December 2006 onwards. The CAT held that the MasterCard UK MIF was a restriction on competition by effect under Chapter I and article 101. Accordingly, Sainsbury's was entitled to recover an amount equivalent to the extent to which the MasterCard UK MIF paid by it over the claim period exceeded the amount that it would have been charged absent the relevant MIF. Sainsbury's was awarded £68,582,245 plus interest in damages. MasterCard sought permission to appeal.

However, on 30 January 2017, in a separate but similar action, the High Court of England and Wales (High Court) rejected an action for damages brought by several other UK high street retailers (namely, Asda, Arcadia, Next, B&Q, Comet, New Look, Iceland, Argos, WM Morrisons and Debenhams), ruling that MasterCard's UK, Irish and EEA MIFs were not restrictive of competition.8 The High Court held that it was not bound by the CAT's findings of law or fact.

In separate but related proceedings, Sainsbury's (together with a number of other UK retailers that have since settled) brought a stand-alone damages action against Visa as regards Visa's UK MIFs under Chapter I and Article 101. The High Court's judgment is pending.

The outcome of any appeals against the judgments above in relation to MasterCard's and Visa's MIFs will have an impact on the multiple damages actions against MasterCard and Visa pending before the CAT and the High Court, including the collective damages action against MasterCard on behalf of consumers in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v MasterCard Inc and Others, which was brought under the new ‘opt out' regime introduced in section 47B CA98.9

Appeal against CMA's decision in Galvanised Steel Tanks

In February 2017, the CAT published a notice of appeal lodged by Balmoral Tanks Ltd contesting its fine in relation to the CMA's infringement decision in the Galvanised Steel Tanks case.10 In December 2016, the CMA had issued two decisions finding that suppliers of galvanised steel tanks had infringed Chapter I and Article 101 in relation to the supply of galvanised steel tanks for water storage. In the relevant decisions, the CMA found that Balmoral Tanks Ltd, together with three of the parties to the main cartel - Franklin Hodge, Calglass and KW Supplies - had infringed Chapter I and article 101 by exchanging commercially sensitive information at a meeting in July 2012.11

Appeal against CMA's decision in Paroxetine

In April 2016, the CAT published notices of appeal lodged against the CMA's infringement decisions fining a number of pharmaceutical companies for agreeing to delay generic entry into the market for the drug paroxetine.12

In February 2016, the CMA imposed fines totalling £44.99 million on GlaxoSmithKline, Alphapharm Ltd, and Generics (UK) Ltd under Chapter I and article 101 as regards a series of so-called ‘pay-for-delay' agreements that were aimed at delaying generic entry for the drug paroxetine.13 In a number of recent decisions, the European Commission has found that certain pay-for-delay arrangements in patent disputes breach article 101 where the originator pharmaceutical firm makes a ‘value transfer' (essentially, a payment) to generic firms to delay the market entry of generic medicines. The CMA found that, between 2001 and 2004, GlaxoSmithKline (the supplier of branded paroxetine) had agreed to make payments and other value transfers totalling over £50 million to Alphapharm Ltd and Generics (UK) Ltd (suppliers of generic versions of paroxetine) which were aimed at delaying the potential entry of the generic firms on the UK market for paroxetine.

The appeals against the CMA's infringement decision were lodged by GlaxoSmithKline, Generics (UK) Ltd, Xellia and Alpharma, Actavis UK, and Merck. In its appeal, GlaxoSmithKline claimed that the CMA erred in defining the relevant market; in finding that GlaxoSmithKline held a dominant position; and in finding that GlaxoSmithKline had abused a dominant position. GlaxoSmithKline also claimed that the CMA erred in finding that the agreement with the generic firms had as its object or effect the restriction of competition.

Civil investigations

Light fittings

On 3 May 2017, the CMA issued a settlement decision finding that the National Lighting Company Ltd (and its subsidiaries) had engaged in resale price maintenance in breach of Chapter I and article 101, by preventing retailers from setting their own prices online and forcing them to sell at - or above - a minimum price.14 The CMA stated that ‘[w]ith more and more retail activity moving online, making sure competition works well in this channel is a priority for the CMA'. The fine imposed on the company included a reduction to reflect savings due to its admission of liability and its cooperation with the CMA under the settlement agreement. 

The CMA did not proceed against the downstream retailers further to rule 5(3) of the CA98 Rules, which enable the CMA to address an infringement decision to fewer than all the parties to an infringement.

Furniture parts

On 27 March 2017, the CMA issued two settlement decisions finding that three suppliers of furniture parts had infringed Chapter I and article 101, by agreeing to share the market and coordinate their commercial behaviour through bid-rigging and the exchange of confidential competitively sensitive information.15 

In the first decision (the Drawer Wraps cartel), the CMA found that, between April 2006 and September 2008, BHK (UK) Ltd and Thomas Armstrong (Timber) Ltd took part in an illegal cartel in respect of the supply of chipboard and MDF-based drawer wraps to the UK bedding, office and domestic furniture industry. In the second decision (the Drawer Fronts cartel), the CMA found that between July 2006 and September 2008, and between at least September and October 2011, Thomas Armstrong (Timber) Ltd and Hoffman Thornwood Ltd took part in an illegal cartel in relation to the supply of chipboard and MDF-based drawer fronts to the UK bedding industry.

Both Thomas Armstrong and Hoffman Thornwood settled the case by admitting liability and agreeing to pay fines totalling £2,881,000 (reduced further to reaching a settlement with the CMA). The third supplier, BHK, received immunity under the CMA's leniency policy and paid no fine.

Conduct in the modelling sector

In December 2016, the CMA imposed fines totalling £1,533,500 on five model agencies and their trade association for breaches of Chapter I and article 101.16 The CMA found that the five model agencies - FM Models, Models 1, Premier, Storm and Viva - had regularly and systematically exchanged information and discussed prices in the context of negotiations with particular customers, and had in some instances agreed a common approach to pricing or agreed to fix minimum prices. The CMA also found that the model agencies controlled the council of a trade association, the Association of Model Agents (AMA), and that they had used the AMA and its council (which managed the AMA's business) as a vehicle for their coordination. The coordination included regular and systematic e-mails from the AMA to its members, known as ‘AMA Alerts', encouraging model agencies to reject the fees being offered by specific customers and to negotiate a higher fee.

Online sales of posters and frames

In July 2016, the CMA reached a settlement with Trod Ltd, imposing a fine of £163,371 for retail price maintenance (RPM) in the market for online sales of posters and frames in breach of Chapter I. The other party to the illegal arrangement, GB eye Ltd, was granted full immunity from financial penalties under the CMA's leniency policy. The CMA found that Trod had agreed with GB eye, an online competitor, that if there was no cheaper third-party seller they would not undercut each other's prices for posters and frames sold on Amazon's UK website.17 The infringing agreement was implemented through the use of automated repricing software, which Trod and GB eye had configured to give effect to the illegal cartel.

On 1 December 2016, the CMA announced that Daniel Aston, the managing director of Trod, had given a disqualification undertaking not to act as a director of any UK company for five years.18 The CMA exercised its powers under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to accept the disqualification undertaking (see also below).19 Daniel Aston was the managing director of Trod at the time of the infringement and the CMA found that he had personally contributed to the infringement.

Commercial catering equipment

On 24 May 2016, the CMA reached a settlement with ITW Limited (ITW), imposing a fine in the amount of £2.3 million, as a result of having engaged in RPM in internet sales of its Foster commercial fridges between 2012 to 2014.20 The CMA found that Foster Refrigerator, a division of ITW, had operated a ‘minimum advertised price' policy, which prohibited resellers from advertising any Foster products below a minimum retail price either online or offline. Foster monitored its resellers' websites to ensure compliance, and threatened to charge them higher cost prices or to terminate supply if they advertised below the minimum price.

The CMA reduced the initial fine by 10% as a result of ITW's undertaking to set up a comprehensive compliance training programme; and a further 20% to reflect savings further to reaching a settlement.

Under rule 10(2) of the CA98 Rules, the CMA did not impose penalties on the dealers who were party to the infringing arrangement. The CMA sent warning letters to a number of other businesses in the commercial catering equipment sector which it suspected may have been involved in similar internet sales practices; and also wrote an open letter to businesses providing them with information on RPM and warning them of the consequences of infringing competition law.21

Bathroom fittings

On 10 May 2016, the CMA announced that it had reached a settlement with Ultra Finishing Ltd (Ultra), a bathroom fittings supplier, fining it £786,668 for RPM in breach of Chapter I and article 101 in respect of online sales of its Hudson Reed and Ultra branded products.22

In 2012, Ultra introduced online trading guidelines to its resellers including a so-called ‘recommendation' that their online prices should be no lower than 25% below its recommended retail prices (RRPs). The CMA found that in practice the ‘recommendations' set minimum resale prices, and that Ultra monitored retailers' websites, threatening them with penalties for not pricing at or above the ‘recommended' price, including charging them higher prices for products, withdrawing their rights to use Ultra's images online, and/or ceasing supply. This limited the retailers' ability to offer discounts to potential buyers.

The fine against Ultra included a 20% discount as a result of reaching a settlement with the CMA, and an additional 5% discount as a result of having undertaken to set up a competition compliance programme, reducing the original fine of £1 million to £786,700.

The CMA applied rule 10(2) of the CA98 Rules and did not impose penalties on the retailers that had been party to the infringing arrangement. However, the CMA sent warning letters to a number of other suppliers of bathroom fittings that it suspected to have engaged in similar practices as regards online sales.

Residential estate agency services

On 7 March 2017, the CMA issued a statement of objections (that is, preliminary findings) alleging that six estate agents operating in the Burnham-on-Sea area had infringed Chapter I by taking part in a price-fixing agreement in relation to the provision of residential estate agency services.23 The statement of objections followed a settlement agreement announced by the CMA on 2 March 2017 with four of the relevant estate agents, while a fifth estate agent received immunity under the CMA's leniency policy and would pay no fine. The sixth estate agent did not admit liability and the CMA's investigation against it continued.

The CMA stated that the investigation was launched ‘on the basis of information received after compliance work undertaken following a previous CMA investigation into the advertising of fees in the estate and letting agency sector'. In the previous case, the CMA issued an infringement decision in May 2015 against a local association of estate agents, three of its members, and a newspaper publisher that had entered into a price-fixing arrangement preventing members of the association from advertising their fees or discounts in a local newspaper.

Pharmaceutical pay-for-delay agreements

On 3 March 2017, the CMA issued a statement of objections to two pharmaceutical companies, Concordia and Actavis UK, alleging that they had entered into a pay-for-delay arrangement by which Actavis had incentivised Concordia not to enter the market for hydrocortisone with its own competing version of the drug in breach of Chapter I and article 101.24

The CMA is conducting a number of investigations in the pharmaceutical sector, primarily relating to alleged pay-for-delay arrangements in breach of Chapter I/article 101, or alleged unilateral excessive pricing by dominant firms in breach of Chapter II/article 102.

Cleanroom laundry services

On 20 January 2017, the CMA issued a statement of objections to two suppliers of cleanroom laundry services, Micronclean Ltd and Berendsen Newbury alleging that they had engaged in a market-sharing arrangement in breach of Chapter I, under which they divided up customers by geographical territory and/or customer type.25 Cleanroom laundry services are supplied to customers with operations in sterile environments, such as pharmaceutical manufacturers and National Health Service (NHS) pharmacies.

Leisure sector investigation

On 21 December 2016, the CMA issued a statement of objections alleging that the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain breached Chapter I, because some of its rules protected existing Guild members from competition and reduced the potential for new attractions to join fairs.26 The CMA alleged that the Guild's rules restricted members (making up to 90% of the travelling fairs sector in the UK) from competing with one another in organising or attending fairs; prevented members from starting new fairs which would compete with existing ones; and made it difficult for non-Guild members to compete.

Sports equipment

On 9 June 2016, the CMA sent a statement of objections to Ping Europe Ltd, a manufacturer of golf equipment, alleging that Ping operated an online sales ban which prevented retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online in breach of Chapter I and article 101.27 The CJEU has held in the past that an absolute ban on sales over the internet, in the context of a selective distribution system, has the object of restricting competition under article 101.28

Other civil enforcement action

In 2016, the CMA opened a number of further investigations in the supply of precast concrete drainage products,29 medical equipment,30 construction industry products and services,31 solid fuel products32 and auction services.33 The investigation into the precast concrete drainage products case is a parallel civil case to an ongoing criminal prosecution. Both the medical equipment investigation and the auction services investigation concern online sales. The medical equipment investigation relates to suspected anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices potentially restricting the prices at which retailers may advertise or sell medical equipment online; while the auction services investigation relates to suspected exclusionary and restrictive pricing practices, including most-favoured-nation provisions in respect of online sales.

Future civil enforcement

The CMA responded to the NAO's criticism in early 2016 as to lack of case flow by opening a number of new investigations, as well as issuing infringement decisions in others. The CMA has focused its attention on the pharmaceutical sector and the impact of any alleged anti-competitive conduct on prices charged to the NHS, as well as a number of lower-profile and local-targeted cases involving small and medium-sized firms.

Criminal enforcement under EA section 188

Following a change in the law, for conduct after 1 April 2014, it is no longer necessary for the CMA to prove that individuals acted ‘dishonestly' to commit the cartel offence in order to secure a disqualification order - this has effectively created a strict liability offence.

First director disqualification order

On 1 December 2016, the CMA announced that it had secured the first disqualification of a director of a company found to have infringed competition law.34 The disqualification followed the CMA's decision that the relevant company, Trod, had breached competition law by agreeing with one of its competing online sellers that they would not undercut each other's prices for posters and frames sold on Amazon's UK website (see above).

Future criminal enforcement

The first disqualification order secured by the CMA was an important milestone in its criminal cartel enforcement record. It can be expected that the CMA will pursue the disqualification of directors more vociferously going forward, especially under the post-April 2014 law. However, it will not be until there is a prosecution under the post-April 2014 law, and then one in particular with parallel international civil or criminal aspects, or both, that any future prospects of criminal litigation may become clearer.

Implementation of EU Damages Directive

In March 2017, the Claims in respect of Loss or Damage arising from Competition Infringements (Competition Act 1998 and Other Enactments (Amendment)) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) entered into force.35 The Regulations transposed retrospectively the EU Damages Directive36 into UK law. The EU Damages Directive was designed to make it easier for victims of anti-competitive conduct to obtain compensation for loss suffered across the EU. While the UK government stated that it considered UK domestic legislation on competition damages actions already to be broadly in line with the EU Damages Directive, the Regulations make a number of changes to the existing rules in the UK in relation to limitation periods, disclosure rules, and the principle of joint and several liability.

The Regulations provide that the date on which the limitation period for a competition claim commences will be the later of either the day on which the infringement of competition law which is the subject of the claim ceases, or the day on which the claimant either knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the infringement.

The UK's existing disclosure rules are broader than the minimum standard set by the EU Damages Directive. However, the Regulations impose limits on the ability of the UK courts to order disclosure of certain categories of documents. The courts may therefore not order the disclosure of cartel leniency statements and settlement submissions that have not been withdrawn.

While generally defendants will be jointly and severally liable for the damage caused by a cartel, the Regulations introduce certain exceptions to this principle. Small and medium-sized enterprises will therefore only be liable for their own direct and indirect sales. Similarly, immunity applicants will only be liable for loss concerning their own sales, unless the claimant is unable to obtain full compensation for the loss or damage from other undertakings involved in the cartel.

Brexit

On 23 June 23 2016, the UK voted to leave the 28-nation European Union (EU). On 29 March 2017, the UK government gave the European Council formal notification under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) of its intention to withdraw from the EU and from the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

The implications of Brexit from an antitrust perspective will depend on the basis of the UK's ongoing relationship with the EU, which is not clear at the time of writing. For example, section 60 of the CA98 currently provides that any questions relating to competition within the UK are to be dealt in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of corresponding questions under EU competition law. From a cartel enforcement perspective, competition law issues that would need to be addressed include the following: the applicability in the UK of European Commission decisions (eg, proceedings before the High Court or the CAT); the binding nature in the UK of judgments of the European Court; the extent to which the CMA could come to a different finding from the European Commission and the European Court; and the conduct of infringement investigations, given that the European Commission would not have jurisdiction to conduct investigations in the UK.

This update covers the period from March 2016 to March 2017.

Notes

1. Article 3(1) of Council Regulation 1/2003 provides that the CMA has to apply article 101 TFEU where the CMA applies section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (national equivalent to article 101 TFEU) to conduct which may affect trade between EU member states.
2.  Available at www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-UK-Competition-regime.pdf.
3.  Available at www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-grenfell-on-the-cmas-progress-in-enforcing-competition-law.
4. See CMA press release of 20 March 2017, ‘CMA launches campaign to crack down on cartels', available at www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-campaign-to-crack-down-on-cartels.
5.  Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/583ff903e5274a1303000040/daniel-aston-director-disqualification-undertaking.pdf.
6. The decisions in the light fittings sector, the furniture sector, the online sales of posters and frames, the commercial refrigeration sector and the bathroom fittings sector, and the main cartel infringement in Galvanised Steel Tanks, were pursuant to settlement agreements.
7. Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard Inc and Others [2016] CAT 11, judgment of 14 July 2016 available at http://catribunal.org/files/1241_Sainsburys_Judgment_CAT_11_140716.pdf.
8. Asda Stores Ltd and Others v MasterCard Inc and Others [2017] EWHC 93 (Comm), judgment of 30 January 2017 available at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2017/93.html.
9. Section 47B allows representative litigants to apply to the CAT to bring proceedings for damages on an ‘opt out' basis on behalf of a class of claimants.
10. 1277/1/12/17 (1) Balmoral Tanks Ltd and (2) Balmoral Group Holdings Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority, case registered on 20 February 2017. Case information available at www.catribunal.org.uk/237-9701/1277-1-12-17--1-Balmoral-Tanks-Limited-and-2-Balmoral-Group-Holdings-Limited-.html.
11. CE/9691/12 - Galvanised steel tanks for water storage information exchange infringement, CMA decision of 19 December 2016, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58db746440f0b606e300003c/ce-9691-12-information-exchange-decision.pdf.
12. 1252/1/12/16 GlaxoSmithKline PLC v Competition and Markets Authority, case registered on 12 April 2016. Case information available at www.catribunal.org.uk/237-9158/1252-1-12-16-GlaxoSmithKline-PLC.html.
13. CE/9531/11 - Paroxetine, CMA decision of 12 February 2016 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57aaf65be5274a0f6c000054/ce9531-11-paroxetine-decision.pdf.
14.  Light fittings sector: anti-competitive practices, CMA decision of 3 May 2017. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/light-fittings-sector-anti-competitive-practices#settlement-and-infringement-decision.
15. CE/9882-16 - Supply of products to the furniture industry: suspected anti-competitive arrangements, CMA decision of 27 March 2017. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/supply-of-products-to-the-furniture-industry-suspected-anti-competitive-arrangements.
16. CE/9859-14 - Conduct in the modelling sector, CMA Decision of 16 December 2016 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58d8eb1840f0b606e7000030/modelling-sector-infringement-decision.pdf.
17. 50223 - Online sales of posters and frames, CMA Decision of 12 August 2016 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57ee7c2740f0b606dc000018/case-50223-final-non-confidential-infringement-decision.pdf.
18. See www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-secures-director-disqualification-for-competition-law-breach.
19. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/583ff903e5274a1303000040/daniel-aston-director-disqualification-undertaking.pdf.
20. CE/9856/14 - Online resale price maintenance in the commercial refrigeration sector, CMA Decision of 24 May 2016 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/575a8f5eed915d3d24000003/commercial-catering-equipment-non-confidential-decision.pdf.
21. CMA open letter to suppliers and retailers about resale price maintenance (RPM) and compliance with competition law, 21 June 2016, available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530570/rpm-open-letter-suppliers-retailers.pdf.
22. CE/9857-14 - Online resale price maintenance in the bathroom fittings sector, CMA Decision of 10 May 2016 available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/573b150740f0b6155b00000a/bathroom-fittings-sector-non-conf-decision.pdf.
23. 50235 - Residential estate agency services: suspected anti-competitive arrangement(s), investigation opened on 10 December 2015. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/residential-estate-agency-services-suspected-anti-competitive-arrangement-s.
24. Hydrocortisone tablets: alleged anti-competitive agreements and abusive conduct, investigation opened on 12 April 2016. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/pharmaceutical-sector-anti-competitive-agreements.
25. 50283 - Cleanroom laundry services and products: suspected anti-competitive arrangement, investigation opened on 30 March 2016. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/cleaning-services-sector-suspected-anti-competitive-arrangement-s#statement-of-objections.
26. Leisure sector: suspected anti-competitive practices, investigation opened on 15 December 2015. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/leisure-sector-anti-competitive-practices#case-timetable.
27. Sports equipment sector: anti-competitive practices, investigation opened on 18 November 2015. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/sports-equipment-sector-anti-competitive-practices.
28. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l'Autorité de la concurrence, ECLI:EU:C:2011:649.
29. 50299 - Supply of precast concrete drainage products: civil investigation, investigation opened on 15 April 2016. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/supply-of-precast-concrete-drainage-products-civil-investigation.
30. Medical equipment: anti-competitive practices, investigation opened on 11 April 2017. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/medical-equipment-anti-competitive-practices.
31. Provision of products and/or services to the construction industry: civil investigation, investigation opened on 28 February 2017. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/provision-of-products-and-or-services-to-the-construction-industry-civil-investigation.
32. 50366 - Supply of solid fuel products, investigation opened on 9 November 2016. Case information available at https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/supply-of-solid-fuel-products.
33.  Auction services: anticompetitive practices, investigation opened 22 November 2016. Case information available at www.gov.uk/cma-cases/auction-services-anti-competitive-practices.
34. See www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-secures-director-disqualification-for-competition-law-breach. The disqualification undertaking is available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/583ff903e5274a1303000040/daniel-aston-director-disqualification-undertaking.pdf.
35. See www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/385/contents/made. 
36. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0104&from=EN.