Indirect harm sufficient to found jurisdiction for antitrust claim
In the case of Deutsche Bahn AG & 30 ors v Morgan Advanced Materials plc (formerly Morgan Crucible Co plc) & 5 ors  CAT 18, 15 August 2013, the Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction to bring a follow-on antitrust damages action can be established under article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation even where the claimant is not an immediate (direct) victim of the harmful event in question. This is the first ruling of this type on article 5(3) in the context of antitrust damages actions and will aid the establishment of English jurisdiction for such claims.
Under Rule 31 of the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) Rules 2003, a claimant may bring a ‘follow-on’ antitrust damages action in the CAT under s47A Competition Act 1998, in other words following on from an infringement decision by the European Commission or Office of Fair Trading, within two years of that decision…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Allen & Overy
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Allen & Overy
Practically every aspect of financial law is regulated and controlled to the highest degree. Not so state insolvency.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of a sovereign state restructuring on credit default swaps.
Analysis from The Lawyer
‘Exotic’ investors and opportunities for legal work beyond M&A feature in The Lawyer’s high-level roundtable debate on south-east Europe
Why has Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) decided to walk away from the Singapore qualifying foreign law practice (QFLP) scheme?