Chillin'Competition

Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Antitrust Compliance

with 4 comments

The European Commission has just released a brochure entitled Compliance matters: What companies can do better to respect EU competition rules.

The foreword says that companies should “[l]ook at this brochure as a road safety brochure ahead of the holiday period“. Many of the companies reading this will be certainly comforted by the  irony  positive thinking underlying the reference to the holiday period ahead.

In essence, the Commission´s document contains the following messages: (i) breaching competition law isn´t cool and naughty companies can be punished; and (ii) companies should have tailor-made compliance programs.

When I received the brochure this morning I was curious to read the Commission´s advice on how firms could stay out of trouble. After a quick skim, I see that the closest to constructive advice on substantive matters is this profound passage:

 “DON´T fix purchase or selling prices or other trading conditions; DON´T limit poduction, markets, technical development or investment; DON´T share markets or sources of supply; DON´T exchange individualised information on intended future prices or quantities or other strategic information.”

I have the feeling that most of the readers of the brochure already had some kind of intuition that they couldn´t do such things. Moreover, some of that advise is rather hard to put in practice (e.g. “limiting investment” : could bank’s refusal to grant credit be considered a breach of competition law?;  “limiting production”: shall a company make some more of this product that isn’t selling too well?; “limiting a market”: how does one limit a market? ).

In any case, and  leaving easy jokes aside, the Commission must be applauded for its attempt to foster a compliance culture. Other competition authorities such as the OFT and the Autorité de la Concurrence should also be commended for their efforts on this area. Moreover, the Commission has provided much general guidance elsewhere and it cannot be expected to do so on a brochure like this.

In fact, the message about the need for companies to have an effective and tailor made compliance program is welcome and important. The brochure basically sets out the fundamentals of compliance program design, and whereas it does not say anything groundbreaking it does a good job in explaining the basic stuff.

The Commission doesn´t seem to contemplate further incentives such as fine reductions for companies with established and appropriate compliance programs. The French competition authority has proposed fine reductions, but on an ex post basis and only in the framework of settlement proceedings. But why not take a bolder step?  I tend to understand those who argue that it doesn´t make much sense to reward firms that have breached the law ignoring such programs, but what about those cases where the company has a clear  policy and intention of complying with the law, but one or a few “rogue” executives act on their own? (we all know many instances where this has been the case). It all would come down to assessing what standard the firm had set and whether it complied, as a firm, with that standard. This point was also made by D. Geradin (with the support of J.Wileur and D. Malamataris ) on an interesting recent paper. Companies should not be rewarded for breaching the law, but it would be fair to limit the damage when it can be shown that a given company has done everything it could.

At the end of the day, the content of the Commission´s document is ok given what can be expected from a  non-specialist brochure from the Commission. What is more worrysome is that I have seen (more than once) very similar “brochures” which had been sold to companies prêt à porter (not tailor made; i.e copy/paste jobs) and at ridiculous prices.  I´m currently working on a couple of compliance programs, and, to be frank, general and vague programs aren´t useful for the companies nor for lawyers (unless billing is considered to be the sole parameter).  On the contrary, ad hoc programs adapted to particular firms and markets are extremely useful for firms as well as extremely interesting for lawyers, since we get to be in touch with a wide array of strategies and practices in many different markets.  A subversive thought springs to mind, shouldn´t clients also draft some compliance programs on professional service standards for some law firms?

Written by Alfonso Lamadrid

25 November 2011 at 12:01 am

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And a leak: DG COMP will soon release an antitrust movie for kids!

    Nicolas Petit

    25 November 2011 at 7:25 am

  2. There is one other present that I have been waiting for: ManProc. Has it slipped out somewhere, or is the Commission still holding on to it?

    RectoVerso

    25 November 2011 at 1:34 pm

  3. I suppose that all the Authorities have spread such kind of guidelines. In Spain, go to the CNC webpage
    (http://www.cncompetencia.es/Inicio/Porqueesimportantelacompetencia/Auditoriadelacompetenciaparaempresas/tabid/93/Default.aspx).

    Antonio López Miño

    29 November 2011 at 11:08 am

  4. There is one other present that I have been waiting for: ManProc. Has it slipped out somewhere, or is the Commission still holding on to it?

    jordi el nino

    29 April 2017 at 10:37 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: