What are the methodologies behind quantifying harm caused by cartels?
A rash of recent cases has led to a considerable uptick in the profile of competition-related claims. These have been rendered more practical by rulings made by the Supreme Court that have opened the door to opt-out group actions being brought in the UK. In parallel, we are seeing a renewed focus of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on areas of consumer harm. Many commentators are predicting that these circumstances will lead to a step-change in the number of follow-on claims being heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
However, one of the challenges encountered in bringing such claims is the evaluation of the damages suffered by the claimants. The challenge is rooted in the fact that such evaluations must define and assess a scenario in which the anti-competitive behaviour did not take place. As such, this ‘counter-factual’ scenario lies somewhere between an empirical approach based upon known facts and reference data, and one that deploys economic theories of harm.
In this article published by The Lawyer, FRA forensic accounting experts Derek Patterson and Matt Rees share their insights on changes in litigation procedures and challenges in evaluating follow-on claims.
Read the full article here.
