BGP Litigation associates have profound expertise in: providing support in legal disputes pertaining to antitrust regulation; representing clients during the course of proceedings conducted by antitrust authorities; public procurement; obtaining required approvals for mergers, acquisitions and market concentration including in relation to strategic enterprises and under the advertising law and the investment in strategic enterprises law.
Services offered by BGP Litigation also include development of corporate antitrust risk prevention systems (antitrust compliance) and representing clients in cases of unfair competition.
As regards to antitrust regulation issues, BGP Litigation offers the following legal support services:
Representing companies in antitrust authorities, preparation and filing of claims of violation of antitrust and advertising laws
Providing legal advice on building dealership networks / distribution chains
Review of agreements and commercial and bonus policies in terms of conformity to antitrust laws
Legal due diligence of businesses with a focus on their compliance with antitrust laws (antitrust audit).
A successful appeal in first instance and appeal courts of a ruling relating to violation of antitrust laws, issued by an antitrust authority against a global producer of liquid oxygen.
The antimonopoly authority has recognized the actions of a major manufacture of medical oxygen as a violation of the Competition Law in connection with the entry into an anti-competition agreement with the regional authorities represented by the Ministry of Health Care of a Russia's constituent entity.
The antimonopoly authority held that the Competition Law was violated on the basis of the fact that preliminary arrangements took place between the parties documented as a Letter of Intent.
The company was facing a "turn-over" fine of up to 15% of its revenues.
The integrated line of defence allowed us to prove before the state courts of the first instance and of appeal that the circumstances of the case, whether taken individually or together, did not show that any advantages had been obtained by the manufacturer of medical oxygen. In addition, it was demonstrated during the court proceedings that the antimonopoly authority erroneously concluded that the cooperation between the company and the regional government caused negative implications for the competition, including a price increase.
This success made it possible not only to prove that the supplier company acted in good faith but also enabled the client to use the same scheme of cooperation between the business and the regional authorities for the future and to avoid substantial losses for the business.