Liner companies under the microscope

This agreement may take the form of an overt agreement. However, in antitrust enforcement, there is no need for there to have been an “agreement”, in the conventional sense of the word: discussion with competitors of future price or capacity intentions is often enough to establish an infringement.

In many cases, an investigation is prompted by the provision of evidence of an infringement by a “whistleblower” – one of the companies involved in the infringement. The whistleblower will usually receive complete immunity from any sanctions imposed on the other participants in the illegal conduct.

During the dawn raids (which in most cases went on for more than one day) the Commission used its wide and intrusive investigative powers. It will have copied hundreds of thousands of emails (included those consigned to “deleted items”) sent and received by individuals who it suspects may have contacts with competitors (legitimate or otherwise). Electronic calendars will have been copied and used to determine when important meetings took place.

The Commission may also be able to draw on witness evidence from individuals employed by any leniency applicant. It is even not unknown for company executives to have tape recordings of their conversations used against them.

The Commission has no absolute right to force employees to attend interviews. However, during the dawn raid, the Commission is entitled to ask company employees questions about the factual content of the documents that the Commission obtains copies of. It can also ask employees about meetings that they may have attended. In circumstances where an individual fails to give complete or accurate information in response to specific questions, the Commission has the power to impose heavy fines.

It is strongly recommended that a company involve specialist competition lawyers in the event of any dawn raid.