Tag: cover pricing
Office design and fit-out cartel leads to director disqualifications
First published by Author on June 13, 2019 in the following categories: Cartels Investigations Price Fixing Price Hikes Pricing and tagged with cartels | cma | competition law | cover bidding | cover pricing | price fixing | pricing
The CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) has secured the disqualification of a number of directors in the aftermath of the fines issued in the office design and fit-out cartel investigation.
In April 2019, fines in the sum of £7m were issued to a number of companies who had been found guilty of breaking vital competition laws. For over a decade, the guilty companies had been engaging in cover bidding, where they were able to artificially inflate the prices of at least 14 contracts. This kind of behaviour can also reduce the quality of services on offer for the consumer as well.
Now, the CMA has taken further action by securing disqualifications for a number of directors who were involved in the cartel activity.
£7m in fines issued in office fit-out competition case
First published by Author on April 04, 2019 in the following categories: Bid-Rigging Cartels Market Sharing Price Fixing Price Hikes Pricing and tagged with cartels | cma | cover bidding | cover pricing | market abuse | marktet sharing | price fixing | pricing
A huge £7m in total fines has been issued after five companies have admitted to breaches in the office fit-out competition case.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been investigating the design, construction and fit-out services market since 2017. In July 2018, they decided to continue their probes, and in March this year, fines have been issued and agreed.
The five companies that have admitted to breaches and will be fined are Coriolis, Fourfront, Loop, Oakley and ThirdWay.
The 2013 access and alarm systems competition breach in retirement homes
First published by Admin on January 05, 2018 in the following categories: Investigations and tagged with cover pricing | elderly homes
Retirement homes and care homes have been at the centre of competition breaches several times. The 2013 access and alarm systems case was a notable one…
In 2013, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) fined four U.K. suppliers of access and alarms systems who had taken part in anti-competitive behaviour when supplying services to retirement homes.
The four companies were fined over £50,000.00 after an investigation that started in 2011.
The Office of Fair Trading investigated the behaviour of the four companies during a four-year period between 2005 and 2009. They found that all four companies had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour across this period.
read more
Bid-rigging and cover-pricing in the construction industry – an infamous case
First published by Admin on December 22, 2017 in the following categories: Investigations and tagged with cover pricing
The Office of Fair Trading (the predecessor to the CMA) found that between 2000 and 2006 the construction industry was rife with anti-competitive behaviour with over 100 companies engaging in bid-rigging and cover-pricing in nearly 200 cases.
The original fine was £129.5 million, but on appeal, the companies were eventually fined £63.6 million.
The OFT that the construction companies involved had engaged in cover-pricing and compensation payments. The compensation payments were found to be between £2,500 and £60,000, as a way to say “thank you” for losing the tender. This was one of the biggest cases of cover-pricing that arguably set the bar in terms of putting a stop to such practices being engaged in the future.
read more
Construction companies cover pricing case in 2008
First published by Admin on November 21, 2016 in the following categories: Latest and tagged with cover pricing
Our Competition Lawyers take a look back at this huge cover pricing case from 2008.
In 2008 the Office of Fair Trading named 112 construction companies who they believed had been engaging in cover pricing. Cover pricing is where artificially high bids for contracts are made with no intention to win the bid, therefore increasing the final bid price by distorting the look of the competition.
Construction companies involved in this case were found to have worked together illegally to increase the cost of a large number of contracts, including bids for the developments and extensions of schools, universities, and hospitals.
i.e. – public sector ventures, meaning taxpayers money was used to fund these projects!
read more