57 results, showing 1 to 20
On 18 December 2012 the ACCC accepted a section 87B undertaking from Oticon Australia Pty Ltd ("Oticon") who are engaged in the wholesale and retail sales of hearing instruments (hearing aids) in Australia.
On 12 December 2012, the ACCC consented to a variation of the section 87B Undertaking given by Pfizer Inc and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (together referred to as Pfizer) on 30 September 2009 (the Undertaking).
The ACCC accepted the Undertaking as part of its decision not to oppose Pfizer’s proposed acquisition of Wyeth Corp. Amongst other things, the Undertaking required the divestiture of Wyeth’s Fort Dodge Livestock Business to a purchaser approved by the ACCC (Virbac Group).
The Livestock Business comprised a number of pharmaceutical vaccines including the mycoplasma hypopneumoniae vaccine (M Hyo Swine Vaccines) which is manufactured overseas and imported into Australia for sale.
The Undertaking has been varied to remove the obligations relating to the transfer of the manufacture of the M Hyo Swine Vaccines to Virbac. Several clauses relating to the confidential obligations have also been varied.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from Angela Delgiacco in respect of false or misleading representations made to consumers during the sale of an Indigenous artwork.
Angela Delgiacco admits that she contravened sections 18 and 29(I)(a) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by, in relation to the painting titled 'Women's Hairstring Ceremony' (the Artwork), attributing:
a title to the Artwork which was commonly attributed to paintings by Makinti Napanangka rather than a title given to the Artwork by Makinti Napanangka; and
a date to the Artwork without knowledge of when the Artwork was painted.
Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd is a seller and distributor of motor vehicles and spare parts, and uses television and print advertising to promote its vehicles in Australia.
In response to an ACCC investigation into the publication of an advertisement for the Nissan DUALIS vehicle, Nissan admitted that it:
- engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL); and
On 22 November 2012, the ACCC announced it had accepted undertakings from Nestlé S.A, Nestlé Australia Pty Ltd and Duke Holdco Pty Ltd (together, Nestlé) (Nestlé Undertaking) and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (Pfizer Undertaking) in relation to Nestlé S.A’s proposed acquisition of Pfizer Nutrition (the Proposed Acquisition).
On 22 November 2012, the ACCC announced it had accepted undertakings from Nestlé S.A, Nestlé Australia Pty Ltd and Duke Holdco Pty Ltd (together, Nestlé) (Nestlé Undertaking) and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (Pfizer Undertaking) in relation to Nestlé S.A’s proposed acquisition of Pfizer Nutrition (the Proposed Acquisition).
Chemical Formulators Pty Ltd ("Chemform") is a manufacturer and supplier of commercial cleaning products in Australia.
In response to an ACCC investigation, Chemform admitted that it was likely to have engaged in Resale Price Maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by:
entering into agreements with distributors, a term of which prevented distributors from discounting the price of Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform;
providing distributors with price lists containing 'reseller' prices for Chemform products, which when read in conjunction with a term of the agreements with distributors was a statement of a price that was likely to be understood by distributors as the price below which Chemform products were not to be sold;
inducing or attempting to induce a distributor not to sell Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform; and
withholding supply from a distributor who was likely to sell Chemform products at a price less than the price specified by Chemform.
To address the ACCC's concerns, Chemform provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking that it will:
not engage in resale price maintenance conduct in the future;
revise its distributor agreement to ensure that it does not contain a clause preventing distributors from discounting the price of Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform;
send a copy of the revised distributor agreement to distributors and advise them that they are free to set the minimum price at which they sell Chemform products; and
implement a Competition and Consumer Law Compliance Program.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from CNT Corp Pty Ltd (CNT Corp) following an investigation relating to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Valiant Enterprises Pty Ltd is a distributor of baby products based in Melbourne, with a distribution network across Australia of between 100-150 retail stores, including online retailers.
The ACCC has consented to the withdrawal of the section 87B undertaking from Australia Post, accepted by the ACCC on 8 April 1998.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 097 284 083 in respect of the supply of baby walkers, and the offer to supply of two models of strollers, which did not comply with the relevant mandatory product safety standards as outlined below.
The HAB-0017 Baby Walker
G & R Wills supplied 1,307 model HAB-0017 Baby Walkers to 93 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory
The Baby Walkers did not have a braking mechanism to prevent them falling down stairs and did not have the required warning labels, and would therefore fail to meet the relevant product safety standard, specifically:
the Baby Walkers did not have a braking mechanism to prevent them from moving if one or more of the wheels came off a horizontal plane; and
the Baby Walkers did not have the required warning labels.
The strollers
G & R Wills supplied or offered to supply the Cellular Baby Stroller and the Fashion Children’s Trolley Stroller (the Strollers) to remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory
The Strollers did not display the mandatory general warning label and the Strollers’ harnesses displayed an incorrect warning label.
G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd admitted that the above conduct contravened sections 106(1) and (2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The ACCC was particularly concerned about this conduct as G & R Wills continued to supply the Baby Walkers after the date on which they were first made aware of potential non compliance with the safety standards.
To address the ACCC's concerns G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking which also requires G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd to undergo trade practices law compliance training.