umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Seminar

Stibbe Annual Competition Law Update

Stibbe Annual Competition Law Update

Stibbe Annual Competition Law Update

17.01.2019 EU law

The Stibbe Annual Competition Law Update will take place on 17 January 2019 (14.30 - 17.45 hours) at our offices in Amsterdam.

In addition to the regular updates on the main developments in EU and Dutch competition law and competition litigation over 2018, this year's event features a special programme to prepare you for 2019 including a guide to help you navigate through the maze of vertical competition issues in the online and offline world. Next year is set to be dynamic in the area of antitrust for online and offline distribution models: the Block Exemption Regulation on vertical restraints will come under review, the Geo-blocking Regulation is now applicable and more enforcement action on sales restrictions and digital conduct is likely. This event is an ideal opportunity to hear a practitioner’s perspective on these issues so you are prepared for the year ahead.          

Stibbe Annual Competition Law Update

Programme

14.30 - 15.00          Registration
15.00 - 15.45          Update on Developments in EU and Dutch Competition Law - Floris ten Have
15.45 - 16.30          Update on Developments in Civil Litigation and Competition - Jeroen Kortmann
16.30 - 16.45          Break
16.45 - 17.45          A Guide through the Maze of Vertical Competition Issues in the Online and Offline World - Rein Wesseling
17.45 - 19.00          Drinks


For more information or to register, please contact us via StibbeEvents@stibbe.com.

Practical information:

Date: 17 January 2019 (14.30 - 17.45 hours) 

Location: Beethovenplein 10, 1077 WM Amsterdam

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more