header-logo header-logo

22 June 2011
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cartels blow whistle to reduce fines

The number of business cartels signing up to the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) leniency programme nearly doubled last year.

In 2010, the OFT accepted every one of the 25 leniency applications it received, compared with 13 of the 15 applications it received in 2009, according to Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC), who obtained the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. The programme offers businesses involved in cartel behaviour an opportunity to secure 100% immunity from fines and prosecution in return for voluntarily providing the OFT with evidence of the cartel.

It was used recently by Barclays, which received 100% discount on its fine for cartel behaviour relating to the pricing of loan products for professional services firms, and by a number of construction companies involved in a major bid-rigging case who received reduced fines for their co-operation.

Stephen Smith, partner at RPC, said: “Cartel behaviour is notoriously difficult to detect. The leniency programme is an important policy tool in the OFT’s enforcement toolkit, enabling the OFT to obtain substantial evidence from businesses prepared to blow the whistle in exchange for a reduced penalty. Plea bargaining style deals are controversial, particularly where the evidence provided may be used subsequently in individual criminal prosecutions, but the tactic certainly seems to be working.”

Smith said there have been concerns among competition lawyers over government proposals to merge the OFT and the Competition Commission.

“The UK competition regime is generally well regarded by business and the legal community alike. There is therefore some concern, particularly in respect of a number of the government’s proposals, that what is perceived as a very effective system could be torn up.”

Issue: 7471 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll