Case reference: CE/9742-13
First published: May 2013
|December 2016||Infringement decision issued|
|February 2016 to November 2016||Consideration of parties’ written and oral representations on the statement of objections; further evidence gathering and analysis; issue of letters of facts; receipt and consideration of parties’ representations on letters of facts; decision on case outcome; preparation of decision|
|January 2016||Oral hearings with parties on written representations on statement of objections|
|November/December 2015||Receipt of written representations on the statement of objections|
|August 2015||Statement of objections issued|
|August 2014 to April 2015||Further investigation including further information requests and stakeholder meetings|
|August 2014||Decision on next phase of the investigation in light of evidence received to date|
|August 2013 to March 2014||Internal governance processes to inform next phase of the investigation|
|August 2013 to March 2014||OFT analysis and review of responses to information requests|
|May to August 2013||State of play meetings with parties under investigation|
|May to August 2013||OFT analysis and review of parties’ responses to information requests|
|May to August 2013||Initial investigation: information gathering, including issuance of formal or informal information requests and parties’ responses|
|May 2013||Investigation opened|
The following changes have been made to the case timetable since it was first published in May 2013:
|Date of change||Reason for change||Change made to timetable|
|28 September 2016||Additional time to consider parties’ representations, decide case outcome and prepare decision||Issue of decision extended from September 2016 to November 2016|
|8 July 2016||Additional time to consider parties’ representations and to decide case outcome||Issue of decision extended from August 2016 to September 2016|
|14 December 2015||Additional time given to the parties to submit written representations||Period for written representations extended from October to November/December 2015|
7 December 2016: The CMA issued an infringement decision to Pfizer Limited and Pfizer Inc (collectively, ‘Pfizer’) and Flynn Pharma Limited and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Limited (collectively, ‘Flynn’).
The CMA found that Pfizer and Flynn each abused their respective dominant positions by imposing unfair prices for phenytoin sodium capsules in the UK thereby infringing the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The CMA imposed a financial penalty of £84.2 million on Pfizer and £5.2 million on Flynn and directed both companies to reduce their prices.
- Press release: CMA fines Pfizer and Flynn £90 million for drug price hike to NHS (7.12.16)
Procedural Officer decisions
7 December 2016: The CMA has published Procedural Officer decisions concerning the investigation.
12 April 2016: The CMA has published a notice of a penalty imposed on Pfizer under section 40A of the CA98. The CMA imposed the penalty on 31 March 2016 for a failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a requirement imposed on Pfizer under section 26 of CA98.
Statement of objections
6 August 2015: In May 2013, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) launched a formal investigation into a suspected breach of competition law in relation to the price of phenytoin (an anti-epileptic drug). On 6 August 2015, the CMA issued a statement of objections alleging that certain pharmaceutical companies have infringed competition law in relation to the supply of phenytoin.
- Press release: CMA issues statement of objections to Pfizer and Flynn Pharma in anti-epilepsy drug investigation (6.8.15)
- The CMA issued a statement of objections on 6 August 2015. No assumption should be made that there has been an infringement of competition law at this stage and the addressees of that statement will now have an opportunity to make written and oral representations on the statement of objections.
- The CMA will consider any representations it receives from the addressees on the statement of objections before any decision is taken as to whether competition law has in fact been infringed.
- Further detail of the CMA’s procedures in Competition Act 1998 cases is available in our Procedural Guidance.
Assistant project director
Brian Jackson (email@example.com)
Andrew Groves (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Senior responsible officer
Ann Pope (email@example.com)