The Chilean Supreme Court upheld Philip Morris -Advised by Carey- and the National Economic Prosecutor´s Appeals, Imposing a US$1.7 million Fine Against British American Tobacco Chile for Anticompetitive Conducts.
January, 2013 - Santiago, Chile
Carey, through partner Lorena Pavic, advised Philip Morris Chile in the claim filed by Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor (Fiscalía Nacional Económica) against British American Tobacco before the Chilean Antitrust Court (Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia).
On December 4, 2012, the Chilean Supreme Court upheld Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor´s appeals, imposing a US$1.7 million fine against British American Tobacco Chile for anticompetitive conducts.
On November 17, 2011, the Chilean Antitrust Court partially accepted the claims filed by Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor, ruling that the advertising agreements between British American Tobacco and point of sales, restricted or hindered competition in the cigarette distribution market. Also, the Antitrust Court ruled that British American Tobacco must release a 20% of the facing of its cigarette´s displays at point of sales in the so-called High Trade, allowing the exhibition of competitive products. However, in its ruling the Antitrust Court did fine British American Tobacco, as requested by Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor.
Both Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, requesting –among others- the imposition of a fine against British American Tobacco. Philip Morris also requested that the release of 20% of the cigarette display´s facing, should be also be applicable at point of sales of the Low Trade distribution channel. The Supreme Court, unanimously, imposed a US$1.7 million app. fine against British American Tobacco, which exactly doubles the fine previously imposed in 2006, when British American Tobacco was sanctioned by the Supreme Court for similar anticompetitive conducts. When imposing the fine, the Supreme Court expressly refers to British American Tobacco´s recidivist behavior and the benefit obtained due to the exclusionary effects of its conduct. The Supreme Court also upheld Philip Morris´ petition, imposing the release of the 20% of the display´s facing at Low Trade point of sales.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed the rest of the Antitrust Court ruling, dismissing British American Tobacco´s appeal (requesting the Supreme Court to declare that British American Tobacco did not undertake any anticompetitive conduct) and other additional petitions of Philip Morris and the National Economic Prosecutor.
