Excessive pricing meaning

This Checklist sets out actions that can be taken—some at procurement stage and others during the life of a project—to help minimise the chance of disputes emerging on construction projects... During the procurement process Select the right procurement route Ensure the procurement method fits the specific context. For instance, where the employer wants to maintain control of the design or specified materials, a traditional contract may suit better than design and build. Conversely, if an earlier start on site is essential, design and build might be the preferred choice. See Practice Note: Choosing the right procurement method—construction projects. Adopt the correct pricing structure Choose a pricing approach that aligns with the employer’s objectives. If price certainty is a priority, a lump sum contract is generally more suitable than a prime cost arrangement. Where a lump sum is used, avoid inserting an excessive number of provisional sums, as these can undermine the desired cost certainty. See Practice Notes:...

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stated on 8 March 2024 that it strongly disputes a judgment delivered the same day by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which concluded that enforcement officials had not put crucial questions to a witness during the drugmakers’ appeal hearings. In July 2021, the CMA levied fines over alleged deals involving two companies now part of Accord Healthcare, together with their former parent Allergan plc, said to have postponed the launch of generic versions of the medicine produced by Waymade and AMCo, now Advanz Pharma. On 8 March 2024, Sarah Cardell, the CMA’s chief executive, said the authority had imposed substantial penalties after determining the firms took part in a market‑sharing arrangement that deprived the NHS of possible “savings from competition for this essential medicine”. Cardell added that the CAT’s decision to allow the appeals is “fundamentally misconceived”, describing the ruling’s consequences as “highly concerning”, and confirming the CMA will appeal and is resolute in pursuing the case. The tribunal had earlier reached a decision...

Dr Rach a el Kent v Apple Inc and Apple Distribution International Limited [2025] CAT 67 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling marks a significant win for claimants, following the dismissal of the first two collective actions to reach trial—Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc and Another [2024] CAT 76 and Justin Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains Ltd and Others [2025] CAT 64. More generally, it engages with a number of key questions in competition law and procedure. The decision also makes notable findings on how a company’s interconnected product suite—here, Apple’s wider digital ‘ecosystem’—should be considered when evaluating market definition, dominance and abuse. The assessment is framed within Apple’s holistic digital ‘ecosystem’, which brings together: (1) the hardware (ie the iPhone or iPad); (2) the iOS operating system; (3) iOS applications installed on the device; and (4) services for iOS users, including the App Store. Apple argued that the overall ecosystem, and the advantages it confers on...

In this issue: UK mergers UK antitrust UK digital markets regime UK competition policy UK sector regulation UK private actions UK NSI Act EU digital markets EU Mergers Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Caselex UK mergers CMA publishes finalised versions of six updated mergers guidance documents to reflect jurisdictional and procedural changes introduced by the DMCCA The CMA has unveiled the definitive editions of six revised merger guidance documents, updating them to mirror the jurisdictional and procedural adjustments brought about by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024)...

This Practice Note provides a checklist in the form of a high-level summary of the key anti-avoidance rules that may apply to restrict the tax deductibility of loan interest for a corporate borrower within the charge to UK corporation tax. They include: the loan relationships regime-wide anti-avoidance rule (RAAR) the unallowable purpose rule the rules recharacterising interest as a distribution the corporate interest restriction the transfer pricing rules the hybrid and other mismatches rules non-market loans the general anti-abuse rule For these purposes, assume the borrower and lender are unrelated and deal strictly on a commercial arm’s length basis in relation to a bilateral or syndicated loan arrangement...

From 31 January 2020, the UK was no longer an EU Member State, having left the Union. Under the Withdrawal Agreement, an 11-month transition (implementation) period ran until 31 December 2020, during which EU law continued to apply in full. EU legislation made or brought into effect after 31 December 2020 (IP completion day) does not bind the UK at all. For EU legislation predating 31 December 2020, a new class of domestic law—retained EU law—was created by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and then the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020; related pre-2021 case law continued to have effect in the UK. For further information and background, see Practice Notes: Brexit—key legislation explained and Retained EU law and assimilated law. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 further amended this position from the end of 2023, altering the framework in practice. With effect from 1 January 2024, any retained EU law still operative in the UK is treated as ‘assimilated’ domestic law, because, in general, EU-derived...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED —this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 August 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeals were brought by HgCapital, Cinven and Mercury Pharmaceuticals (among others) contesting the CMA’s Chapter II finding on excessive and unfair pricing of liothyronine tablets, which identified an abuse of dominance and levied penalties exceeding £101.4m. Latest development On 8 August 2023, the CAT handed down its judgment: (i) it rejected the appellants’ challenges to the CMA’s decision; however, (ii) it cut Cinven’s penalty from £51.9m to £37.1m and HgCapital’s from £8.6m to £6.2m. Parties Appellants: HG Capital LLP (HgCapital) Cinven (Luxco 1) S.a.r.l. and others (Cinven) Mercury Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Advanz Pharma Services (UK) Ltd and others (Advanz Pharma—formerly trading as Concordia) Respondent in all cases: Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Cinven and HgCapital are private equity firms that...