Case study presentation - Ballarat petrol cartel Brenton Philp Australian Competition and Consumer...

Case study presentation -Ballarat petrol cartel

Brenton Philp

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Please ask questions at any time…

Regional Antitrust Workshop

Brenton Philp 4

Details of the Case• Long standing price-fixing arrangement• Providing for controlling of price increases

– Telephone calls advising of impending price increases or complaining when prices did not rise

• 8 wholesalers and/or retailers– Mobil, BP, Shell, Caltex/Ampol, Swift + Apco brands

• Particularised 22 June 1999 – 8 December 2000• Trial – AUD 23.3m fines• Appeal – Apco succeeded

– Further appeal being sought by ACCC


Brenton Philp 5


Brenton Philp 6


Brenton Philp 7


Brenton Philp 8

“Find out who’s who and who does what”

• Interview retailers 4 distributors 3 types of supply

arrangements Prices effectively

set by distributors

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 9

“Find out who the distributors are talking to”

• Call charge recordsDistributors

telephoning each other before price rises

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 10

“Find an insider”

• Interview ex-employees

• Approach from ex-tanker driver

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 11

Distributor A

Distributor B

Distributor C


Brenton Philp 12

Distributor A

Distributor B

Distributor C

Calls to A’s sites + A’s sites increase prices


Brenton Philp 13

Distributor A

Distributor B

Distributor C

Calls to A’s sites + A’s sites increase prices Calls to B’s

sites + B’s sites increase prices

Calls to C’s sites + C’s sites increase price


Brenton Philp 14

Distributor A

Distributor B

Distributor C



Calls to C’s sites

Sometimes, one of C’s sites fails to increase prices


Brenton Philp 15

Distributor A

Distributor B

Distributor C



Calls to C’s sites, but one of C’s sites fails to increase prices on time


Brenton Philp 16


• More approaches to ex-employees– Receptionist +

others– Sales Clerks

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 17


• Use of immunity policy– Former 2nd-in-

charge– Heavily involved

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 18

“Find out whose price went up when + by how much”

• Use of statutory powers – Documents

• Particulars of price increases, phone bills + commercial dealings

– Information• Admissions or other

explanations

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 19

“Find out who was speaking to whom when prices went up”

• Use of Call Charge Records (CCR)

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 20

Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) To Triton Ballarat (Shell) 8.39

Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) To Balgee Ballarat (Mobil) 9.12

Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) To Levick’s mobile (Mobil) 9.13

Levick’s mobile (Mobil) To Triton Ballarat (Shell) 9.14

Levick’s mobile (Mobil) To Palmer’s mobile (BP) 10.02

Levick’s mobile (Mobil) To Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) 10.03

Palmer’s mobile (BP) To Levick’s mobile (Mobil) 10.42

Levick’s mobile (Mobil) To Zala’s mobile (Ampol/Caltex) 10.46

Zala’s Mobile (Ampol/Caltex) To Levick’s mobile (Mobil) 11.14

Levick’s mobile (Mobil) To Zala’s mobile (Ampol/Caltex) 11.22

Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) To Balgee Ballarat (Mobil) 12.02

Chisholm Ballarat (Ampol/Caltex) To Levick’s mobile (Mobil) 12.04



Leahy Corio (BP) To Levick’s mobile (Mobil) 14.16

Balgee Ballarat (Mobil) To Leahy Corio (BP) 15.00

United Fuels (Shell) To Leahy Corio (BP) 15.16

Leahy Corio (BP) To Chisholm Corio (Ampol/Caltex) 15.40


Brenton Philp 21


Brenton Philp 22


Brenton Philp 23


Brenton Philp 24


Brenton Philp 25

“Find out what the distributors have to say for themselves”

• Use of statutory powers requiring individuals to give sworn/affirmed evidence– Junior staff 1st

– Sales Reps– Leniency Applicant

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 26

“Find out who else is involved”

• Repeated investigative process

• More reliance on high-level information from immunity witnesses

Building the Case


Brenton Philp 27

• Interviewing retailers• Finding witnesses

– Former and current employees evidence

• Use of immunity + leniency policies

• Finding particulars– CCR and price records

• Use of statutory powers

Building the Case

Drivers

Price Records

CCRs

Clerk Accountant

Retailers

Receptionist

ClerkFormer

Employees

2-I-C

Immunity applicants

Leniency applicants

Former Employees

Former Employees

“Whistle blower”

Any questions???????


Brenton Philp 29

“The fuel industry and business in Ballarat was, to an extent, a closed business. The distributors blurred the lines between work and social relationships because we were all in the same business and while we were competitors, we were not fiercely competitive. We considered each other as colleagues.

In relation to competitors, there was definitely a general practice that each would notify the others of price moves or intended price moves in Ballarat (“price move calls”) and I participated in many price move calls….

Sometimes after price move calls, particular sites in the Ballarat area did not move their prices as expected. When this happened, I participated in more phone calls with our competitors about trying to get the sites to lift their prices (“reminder calls”)….

The price move and reminder calls worked not by each competitor ringing all the others but by passing messages through the contact for a particular competitor. We relied upon other people in the loop to pass the message through to certain competitors. We didn’t discuss these roles or say ‘you have to be the contact for such-and-such’ – they just fell into place because of the social or business relationships that the different competitors had with one another.”


Brenton Philp 30

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift


Brenton Philp 31

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift

Brumar

Leahy

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift


Brenton Philp 32

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift

Brumar

Leahy

Apco

United Ampol + Alien

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift

Brumar

Leahy

Triton

Balgee

ChisholmSwift

CORE

2nd LEVEL

3rd LEVEL


Brenton Philp 33

Litigating the case – Determining the respondents

• Inner Core– Made + received many many calls– Definite commitment to action: “Alright, we’ll play ball”– Acted as the Contact for other levels

• 2nd Level– Made + received lesser number of calls– More ambiguous commitment to action: “We’ll have a go”

• 3rd Level– Mainly received calls– Lesser commitment to action: “I’ll look into it”


Brenton Philp 34

Litigating the case - Particularising the conduct

• Long standing arrangement

• About 10 years

• CCR + price records

• Specifics for 16 occasions over 3 months


Brenton Philp 35


Brenton Philp 36


Brenton Philp 37

Litigating the case – Issues arising

• Evidence– Witness statements + Oral testimony

• Issues of form• Delay by time of giving evidence• Some statements withdrawn because of

admitting respondents

– Defensive strategies• Corroboration• Thorough statement-taking process


Brenton Philp 38


Brenton Philp 39


Brenton Philp 40


Brenton Philp 41

Litigating the case – Issues arising

• Avoiding distractions– Unnecessary expert evidence

• Claims of impecuniosity– General and specific deterrence– Recovery of Penalties


Brenton Philp 42

“The circumstances of the present case suggest that the substantially increased

monetary penalties provided for by the legislature in respect of conduct contravening Pt IV of the Act, and the numerous occasions on which the Court has imposed substantial penalties on arrangements and understandings proscribed by Pt IV of the Act, have had little, if any, affect on the parties to the price-fixing understanding.” (Merkel J)

“The penalty imposed must be substantial enough that the party realises the seriousness of its conduct and is not inclined to repeat such conduct. Obviously the sum required to achieve this object will be larger where the Court is setting a penalty for a company with vast resources. However, as specific deterrence is only one element and general deterrence must also be achieved, consideration of the party’s capacity to pay must be weighed against the need to impose a sum which members of the public will recognise as significant and proportionate to the seriousness of the contravention.” (Goldberg J)

“It should not be thought that because a middle or lower management level employee is proceeded against for being involved in a contravention of a Pt IV provision, that the penalty will bear a relativity to the employee’s financial resources and that a penalty appropriate having regard to the seriousness of the contravention and the need for a general deterrence component to be included will not be imposed. If the end result is that such an employee may be compelled to seek the protection of the bankruptcy laws, that may only reflect the seriousness of the contravention and the need for a general deterrence component, rather than the conclusion that the penalty was inappropriate having regard to the financial resources of the employee.” (Goldberg J)


Brenton Philp 43

Analysis & Techniques in Cartel Investigations & Litigation

• Working from base-up– ex-employees, insiders, immunity + leniency

• Using statutory investigative powers– Secure evidence + exclude defences

• Relying on witnesses’ evidence– Supplemented by corroboration

• Framing the case to reflect conduct– Taking some managed risks

• Undertaking thorough statement taking process• Adapting approach to meeting attacks on evidence

Any questions???????


Brenton Philp 45

Post script:

• APCO appeal

• Geelong Petrol decision


Brenton Philp 46

Brenton Philp

+61 2 6243 1220

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Case study presentation - Ballarat petrol cartel Brenton Philp Australian Competition and Consumer...

Documents

Transcript of Case study presentation - Ballarat petrol cartel Brenton Philp Australian Competition and Consumer...