The South African Competition Commission referred the ArcelorMittal and Highveld case to the Competition Tribunal on March 30. The referral follows the Commission’s investigation, which found evidence of collusion to fix prices of flat steel products, whereby Highveld would follow any changes in price initiated by Mittal. The Commission found that Mittal and Highveld may also have conspired to maintain market shares and allocate supply quotas for exports. The collusion was enforced through meetings of the South African Iron and Steel Institute, an industry association.
Full content: Moneyweb
Related content: Crackdown on Cartels Highlights the Need for Competition Law Compliance in South Africa (Heather Irvine, Norton Rose)
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh