Skip to content

  • Home
  • Expertise
  • Client results
  • News & Insights
  • People
  • Our DNA
  • Inclusion and Diversity
  • Join us
  • Contact Us
Home / NEWS & INSIGHTS / Blog / Corporate Crime Hub / Large penalties loom for companies that breach competition law
Corporate Crime Hub 17 July 2018

Large penalties loom for companies that breach competition law

Background

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Rod Sims has made it clear that ‘Pursuing cartel conduct, which is so detrimental to the competitive process, will always be an enforcement priority for the ACCC.’1 In recent years, however, there has been growing public concern that the regulator’s purportedly tough stance on these anti-competitive practices was doing little to dissuade corporations, particularly multinational corporations, from undermining the competitive balance of the Australian market.

On 26 March 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published its much anticipated report on Pecuniary Penalties for Competition Law Infringements in Australia (OECD Report). It found that in Australia, both the maximum and average penalties imposed by the Courts for competition law breaches are significantly lower than in the OECD jurisdictions considered, especially for large firms or for long-standing anti-competitive behaviour. The European Union, Germany, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States were selected for the analysis because of the comparable state of their competition law regimes.

The OECD Report explains at page 8: ‘Looking at the amounts of penalties imposed in Australia in a number of cartel cases up to November 2017 – which exclude more recent cases that are still under appeal – and the base fine that would have been applied in the comparator jurisdictions, the average pecuniary penalty in Australia was AUD 25.4 million (Australian dollars), while the average base penalty in the comparator jurisdictions would have been AUD 320.4 million.’2

It was also highlighted by the Report that while most OECD countries impose financial penalties according to a set methodology which considers the size of the infringing company and its product sales, Australia relies upon the Federal Court to determine penalties following an ‘instinctive synthesis’ of various factors.

However, a recent Federal Court of Australia case demonstrates that the Court may have an increasing appetite for imposing larger fines.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation

Viewed against the background of the OECD Report, the record $46 million fine handed down by the Full Federal Court in ACCC v Yazaki may well mark a shift in judicial attitude towards cartel conduct.

At first instance, Besanko J made declarations that Yazaki Corporation (Yazaki) entered into a cartel agreement with Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Sumitomo) to respect each other’s incumbency in particular geographic markets for wire harnesses, which was put into effect by the companies’ Australian subsidiaries in response to requests for tender from Toyota in respect of the 2002, 2006 and 2011 Toyota Camry. His Honour considered that a maximum total penalty of $20 million was applicable in respect of two courses of conduct by Yazaki and ultimately ordered it to pay a fine of $9.5 million.

Both parties appealed against that decision on numerous grounds. The focus of the ACCC’s grounds of appeal were directed at a finding that the fine was manifestly inadequate.

Rather than just the two courses of conduct identified by Besanko J, the Full Federal Court was prepared to recognise five discrete contraventions of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Act), notwithstanding that the conduct which gave rise to each contravention overlapped in some respects. It also found that proceeding on the basis that each course of conduct was punishable by a maximum penalty of $10 million was incorrect when consideration was given to the proper construction of sections 76(1A)(b) and 76(5) of the Act.

Section 76(1A)(b) sets out alternative bases for calculating the maximum pecuniary penalty, being:

  • $10,000,000, or
  • if the Court can determine the value of the benefit that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the act or omission – 3 times the value of that benefit, or
  • if the Court cannot determine the value of that benefit – 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the period (the turnover period) of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the act or omission occurred.

Relevantly, for the purpose of that section, section 76(5) sets out how ‘annual turnover’ is to be quantified. The Full Court held that, properly construed, section 76(5) required a calculation of ‘annual turnover’ to include the turnover of related bodies corporate (subject to some specific exceptions) to the infringing body corporate (i.e. the subsidiaries of the infringing body corporate). This construction was influenced by the recognition that the purpose of the section was to set the maximum penalty and not to fix the penalty itself.

Adopting the above construction, the Full Federal Court found that the five contraventions it identified were instead punishable by a maximum total penalty of $87,411,359.30, and ultimately ordered that Yazaki pay $46 million. Yazaki was penalised:

  • $14 million for making the cartel in response to Toyota’s request for tender for the supply of wire harnesses for the 2011 Camry
  • $12 million for giving effect to the cartel by discussing and agreeing with Sumitomo the prices they would submit for the request for tender
  • $12 million for giving effect to the cartel by submitting the agreed prices
  • $4 million for directing its subsidiary to submit the agreed prices to Toyota’s Australian subsidiary, and
  • $4 million for causing its subsidiary to submit the agreed prices to Toyota’s Australian subsidiary.
Impact on Current Prosecutions

By demonstrating a willingness to interpret the applicable statutory provisions consistently with the submissions of the ACCC, the Full Federal Court has put on notice all companies doing business in Australia that breaches of anti-cartel legislation may now attract more significant penalties than previously.

Lessons for Business

ACCC v Yazaki raises important questions for businesses about their governance. The significant penalties that may be imposed by courts means that there is now more imperative for corporations to have strong policies in place to deal with collusive practices. It is also clear that overseas corporations may be held to account by the ACCC where their activities affect competition in an Australian market. Caution should therefore be exercised in respect of business practices which may be acceptable in corporations’ home jurisdictions, but which nonetheless constitute a contravention of the Act.

As part of the International Fraud Group established by London firm Mishcon de Reya, McCullough Robertson is well placed to advise on any issues relating to anti-competitive behaviour.

A link to the decision of the Full Federal Court may be viewed here – Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Intern Ben Previtera.

1 https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/court-dismisses-accc-cartel-proceedings-against-electrical-cable-manufacturers-and-wholesalers.
2 http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Australia-Pecuniary-Penalties-OECD-Report-2018.pdf.

This publication covers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not designed to express opinions on specific cases. It is intended for information purposes only and should not be regarded as legal advice. Further advice should be obtained before taking action on any issue dealt with in this publication.

About the authors

  • Tim Case

    Partner
  • Xavier Milne

    Senior Associate

In other news

McCullough Robertson adds depth to growth industries in Government, Renewables and ESG, with key lateral partner hire in Brisbane, appointment of a new partner in annual promotions and development of ESG diversified business

4 July 2022Media, News

The DBP Act’s statutory duty of care under the microscope

29 June 2022Insight

2022-23 Queensland Budget

24 June 2022Insight

2022 EOFY trust distributions: handle with care

22 June 2022Insight

VIEW ALL NEWS & INSIGHTS

BRISBANE

Level 11, 66 Eagle Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO Box 1855
Brisbane QLD 4001
Tel +61 7 3233 8888
Fax +61 7 3229 9949

 

GET IN TOUCH

    Contact form

    We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

    Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

    sydney

    Level 32, MLC Centre
    19 Martin Place
    Sydney NSW 2000
    GPO Box 462
    Sydney NSW 2001

    Tel +61 2 8241 5600
    Fax +61 2 8241 5699

     

    GET IN TOUCH

      Contact form


      We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

      Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

      melbourne

      Level 27, 101 Collins Street
      Melbourne VIC 3000
      GPO Box 2924
      Melbourne VIC 3001

      Tel +61 3 9067 3100
      Fax +61 3 9067 3199

       

      GET IN TOUCH

        Contact form

        We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

        Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

        follow us

        CLIENT LOGIN

        newcastle

        92 Young Street
        Carrington NSW 2294
        PO Box 394
        Newcastle NSW 2300

        Tel +61 2 4914 6900
        Fax +61 2 4914 6999

         

        GET IN TOUCH

          Contact form


          We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

          Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

          canberra

          Level 9, 2 Phillip Law Street
          Canberra ACT 2601

          Tel +61 2 6243 3669
          Fax +61 2 8241 5699

           

          GET IN TOUCH

            Contact form


            We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

            Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

            © 2017 McCullough Robertson. Site map Disclaimer Privacy Policy Statement of Business Ethics Credit Reporting Policy

            X