EU Antitrust: Raids on Pharma Companies and E.ON Divestments
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.26.08
EU Commission raids pharma companies days before sector inquiry interim report
The European Commission has confirmed that it conducted antitrust dawn raids at the offices of several pharmaceutical companies in Europe on November 24. The raids come four days before publication of the interim report in the Commission’s pharmaceuticals sector inquiry investigating competition issues in the industry. Press reports have identified both generic and originator companies as targets of the raids.
The Commission has said that the latest raids are not part of the sector inquiry and are not linked to the earlier raids that launched the inquiry on January 15. However, knowledge acquired during the inquiry has, it said, allowed it to “draw conclusions on where Commission action based on competition law could be appropriate and effective”.
The Commission’s press release confirming the raids is available by clicking here: Antitrust: Commission confirms unannounced inspections at pharmaceutical companies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU Commission accepts binding divestment commitments from E.ON in the wake of its energy sector inquiry
On November 26 the Commission formally accepted binding commitments from the German energy giant E.ON to divest (i) its transmission system business consisting of an Extra-High-Voltage (380/220 kV) line network and system operations (currently run by E.ON Netz) and (ii) 5000MW of generation capacity. E.ON’s offer to divest comes in the wake of the Commission’s 2006 energy sector inquiry, which identified competition concerns arising from E.ON’s ownership of both the transmission network and generating capacity in Germany, and a subsequent investigation of E.ON for alleged abuse of market dominance . The allegations included (i) withholding output to drive up electricity prices and (ii) granting preferential network access to its own generation business while passing the resulting costs on to consumers.
The Commission’s press release is available by clicking here: Antitrust: Commission opens German electricity market to competition
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
DOJ Promises NPAs to Certain Individuals Through New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Pilot Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.24
