Budweiser’s New Owner Previously Involved in Illegal European Beer Cartel
In 2007, The European Commission concluded a multi-year investigation against top European beer producers InBev, Heineken, and Grolsch, in addition to a smaller brewer, Bavaria. Fines were levied against the breweries based on evidence that they were engaged in an illegal cartel in the Netherlands between 1994 and 1999. The combined fine the Commission imposed reached nearly €274M. InBev escaped financial penalty because it came forward with key evidence and willingly cooperated with the Commission’s leniency program.
InBev recently confirmed its role as the world’s largest producer of beer by expanding its global market share through purchasing the iconic American Anheuser Busch and its subsidiary companies, including Budweiser.
Investigations began after InBev, at the time Interbrew, provided information of cartel collusion in 1999. This admission was offered within the procedure for the European Commission’s leniency program, which authorizes the Commission to reduce fines for companies that cooperative fully in the its anti-trust work.
The European Commission raided the firms’ headquarters in 2000. After InBev came forward, the Commission’s multi-year investigation unearthed evidence that the firms worked together to fix prices, discuss and allocate individual customers, coordinate rebates, and exchange confidential industry information.
Evidence included handwritten notes which documented prices that the breweries agreed upon charging. The Commission believes that senior management at each company, including board members, were responsible for initiating and maintaining the cartel. They met in public locations and used code words, which suggests that they were fully cognizant that they were engaging in illegal, anti-commercial behavior.
The Commission believes that the cartel’s operation directly and artificially inflated beer prices in the Netherlands, from grocery stores to cafes and hotels to restaurants.
The European Commission has previously fined European breweries for anti-trust violations on several occasions. The first case was in 2001 and involved Interbrew and Danone. They were fined for price fixing, sharing market information, and exchanging industry information in the Belgium market. The combined fine reached €91m. Additionally, Heineken and Kronenbourg were fined €2.5m for anti-trust violations in France in 2004.
Citizens may seek private damages for the most recent tortious acts in the Netherlands, but punitive damages are generally unavailable in the country. Dutch courts may estimate damages if actual figures are difficult or impossible to calculate. The Dutch Civil Procedure Act was amended in 2004 to permit civil remedies for breaches of European Commission regulations concerning anti-trust.
About the author: Jason Hardy is an avid writer on legal issues, including international writing about many subjects including european antitrust lawsuits. Eu competition law interests Jason particularly. He resides in Seattle, Washington.
InBev recently confirmed its role as the world’s largest producer of beer by expanding its global market share through purchasing the iconic American Anheuser Busch and its subsidiary companies, including Budweiser.
Investigations began after InBev, at the time Interbrew, provided information of cartel collusion in 1999. This admission was offered within the procedure for the European Commission’s leniency program, which authorizes the Commission to reduce fines for companies that cooperative fully in the its anti-trust work.
The European Commission raided the firms’ headquarters in 2000. After InBev came forward, the Commission’s multi-year investigation unearthed evidence that the firms worked together to fix prices, discuss and allocate individual customers, coordinate rebates, and exchange confidential industry information.
Evidence included handwritten notes which documented prices that the breweries agreed upon charging. The Commission believes that senior management at each company, including board members, were responsible for initiating and maintaining the cartel. They met in public locations and used code words, which suggests that they were fully cognizant that they were engaging in illegal, anti-commercial behavior.
The Commission believes that the cartel’s operation directly and artificially inflated beer prices in the Netherlands, from grocery stores to cafes and hotels to restaurants.
The European Commission has previously fined European breweries for anti-trust violations on several occasions. The first case was in 2001 and involved Interbrew and Danone. They were fined for price fixing, sharing market information, and exchanging industry information in the Belgium market. The combined fine reached €91m. Additionally, Heineken and Kronenbourg were fined €2.5m for anti-trust violations in France in 2004.
Citizens may seek private damages for the most recent tortious acts in the Netherlands, but punitive damages are generally unavailable in the country. Dutch courts may estimate damages if actual figures are difficult or impossible to calculate. The Dutch Civil Procedure Act was amended in 2004 to permit civil remedies for breaches of European Commission regulations concerning anti-trust.
About the author: Jason Hardy is an avid writer on legal issues, including international writing about many subjects including european antitrust lawsuits. Eu competition law interests Jason particularly. He resides in Seattle, Washington.
Labels: eu competition law, eu law, european antitrust lawsuits
posted by European Antitrust Law at
8:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home