Case reference: CE/9691/12
|15 February 2019
||Court of Appeal judgment rejecting appeal of Information Exchange Decision
|6 October 2017
||CAT ruling rejecting appeal of Information Exchange Decision
|29 March 2017
||Publication of non-confidential versions of infringement decisions (Main Cartel Decision and Information Exchange Decision)
|19 December 2016
||Two infringement decisions issued (Main Cartel Decision and Information Exchange Decision)
|14 November 2016
||Receipt of written representations on Draft Penalty Statement
|1 November 2016
||Draft Penalty Statement issued to non-settling party
|August to December 2016
||Considering parties’ representations; decision on case outcome; preparation of infringement decisions
|June to September 2016
||Receipt of written and oral representations on statement of objections
||Statement of objections issued
||Three parties agree to settle investigation with CMA
||Investigation continuing (further update by the end of May 2016)
||Decision taken to proceed with the investigation (further update by the end of January 2016)
|November 2014 to September 2015
||Further investigation including further analysis and potential further information requests following conclusion of criminal proceedings
||Decision on whether to proceed with investigation or to close the investigation
|November 2012 to November 2014
||Initial investigation: information gathering, including issuance of formal or informal information requests and parties’ responses
|27 November 2012
Court of Appeal ruling
15 February 2019: The Court of Appeal rejected an appeal of the Information Exchange Decision brought by one of the parties.
Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling
6 October 2017: The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) rejected an appeal of the Information Exchange Decision brought by one of the parties.
Non-confidential infringement decisions
29 March 2017: The CMA has published non-confidential versions of the 2 decisions in this case.
(PDF, 1.4 MB) (29.3.17)
(PDF, 1.4 MB) (29.3.17)
19 December 2016: The CMA issued 2 decisions finding that suppliers of galvanised steel tanks have infringed UK and EU competition law in relation to the supply of galvanised steel tanks for water storage.
In one decision (the Main Cartel Decision), the CMA found that 4 suppliers of galvanised steel tanks infringed competition law between 2005 and 2012 by engaging in price-fixing, bid-rigging and market sharing by way of customer allocation (the Main Cartel). The CMA imposed penalties totalling £2.5 million.
In a separate decision (the Information Exchange Decision), the CMA found that 3 of the parties to the Main Cartel and another tank supplier, which was required to pay a penalty of £130,000, infringed competition law by exchanging commercially sensitive information regarding their current pricing and future pricing intentions at a single meeting in July 2012.
The CMA also conducted a related criminal investigation into whether individuals had committed an offence under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002. These proceedings have now concluded.
Statement of objections
26 May 2016: The CMA issued a statement of objections alleging that 5 suppliers of galvanised steel tanks have infringed UK and EU competition law in relation to the supply of galvanised steel tanks for water storage.
Following the settlement announced in March 2016, the statement of objections sets out the CMA’s case against 4 suppliers who have admitted their participation in an illegal cartel agreement to share the market between them, fix prices and rig bids between 2005 and 2012.
The statement of objections also includes a separate allegation that 3 of the suppliers who were party to that cartel agreement also exchanged competitively sensitive information regarding their current and future pricing intentions with another supplier (who was not party to the main cartel agreement) in July 2012.
21 March 2016: Three businesses admitted participating in an illegal cartel in relation to the supply of cylindrical galvanised steel tanks in the UK and agreed to pay fines totalling more than £2.6 million. This includes a discount to reflect the resource savings to the CMA generated by the companies’ admissions and their co-operation with the CMA’s investigation. A fourth member of the cartel reported the cartel conduct under the CMA’s leniency policy and will not be fined, provided it continues to co-operate and complies with the other conditions of the CMA’s leniency policy.
Assistant project director
Barbara Lievens (email@example.com)
Deborah Wilkie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Senior responsible officer
Stephen Blake (email@example.com)