Browse public registers

On 30 September 2009 the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Pfizer Inc and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd in relation to the ACCC's decision not to oppose Pfizer Inc's proposed acquisition of Wyeth Corp.

Between April 2007 and April 2008 Dirt  Works Australia Pty Limited, a wholesaler of bicycles, supplied to retailers 115 Surly Steamroller bicycles which did not have a back brake and also, in some instances, did not have reflectors and a bell, as required by the mandatory standard for pedal bicycles. Dirt Works also supplied those bicycles and a further 190 Surly Steamroller bicycles between May 2008 and June 2009 with a manual which did not comply with the mandatory standard and in packaging which did not have printed on it certain information and a warning regarding their assembly as required by the mandatory standard. Dirt Works acknowledges that by engaging in the above-mentioned conduct it contravened section 65C of the Trade Practices Act 1974. In response to concerns raised with it by the ACCC regarding its conduct, Dirt Works wrote to its retail customers to whom it supplied the bicycles advising them of the failure of the bicycles to comply with the mandatory standard and requesting that they cease supplying any unsold stock of them until they complied with the mandatory standard. Dirt Works has provided court enforceable undertakings not to supply any bicycles that the mandatory standard applies to unless they comply with that standard and to implement a Trade Practices Compliance Program. Dirt Works has also provided court enforceable undertakings which are designed to ensure that consumers who purchased the bicycles: are made aware that their bicycles failed to comply with the mandatory standard; are given the opportunity to have their bicycles fitted with a back brake, reflectors and a bell free of charge if they were not supplied with any of those items when they purchased their bicycles; and are supplied with a manual which complies with the mandatory standard.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Australian Loans Management Pty Ltd (ALM) and Active Money (Aust) Pty Ltd (AM). ALM promoted and sold “licence agreements” for a finance broking business called “Active Money”.  ALM stated that these licence agreements were not franchising agreements. ALM also failed to comply with the Franchising Code of Conduct (the Franchising Code) when entering into existing franchise agreements and when dealing with prospective franchisees. ALM has admitted that its licence agreement is a franchise agreement and that it did not comply with the Franchising Code. It also admitted it misled franchisees by stating that the licence agreement was not a franchise agreement which potentially misled franchisees into believing that they were not entitled to the rights and remedies afforded by the Franchising Code. ALM and AM have undertaken to implement measures to ensure future compliance with the Franchising Code, to provide existing franchisees with a copy of the Franchising Code, a disclosure document and a proposed franchise agreement that complies with the Franchising Code. ALM and AM will also provide existing franchisees with the opportunity to cancel their existing licence agreement and obtain a full refund of all monies paid to ALM. Although AM did not engage in the admitted contravening conduct, it also offered an undertaking to the ACCC because ALM advised that going forward it intends for AM to be the franchisor.

Between about August 2007 and at least 14 May 2009, Calcorp (Australia) Pty Ltd represented via the product’s labelling and in its dealings with its customer Coles that a batch of 500ml units of edible labelled “Paese Mio Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil” (Paese Mio) was extra virgin olive oil (Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation). The ACCC considers that Calcorp has engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct by making the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation because the product was not, in fact, extra virgin olive oil. Calcorp admits that, by making the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation, it made representations about Paese Mio that were false, misleading and deceptive in contravention of sections 52 and 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). Calcorp’s manager, Mr Antonio Dattilo, admits he was knowingly concerned in, or party to, the making of the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation because he authorised the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation and given his knowledge of Calcorp’s products. Calcorp has provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC that, for a period of three years, it will: not represent that a cooking oil is “extra virgin olive oil”, “virgin olive oil” or “olive oil” when it is not; prior to supplying a batch of edible oil in Australia labelled “olive oil”, “virgin olive oil” or “extra virgin olive oil –  require the producer or its supplier of the edible oil to provide a certificate of analysis, or equivalent document, demonstrating compliance of a sample from the applicable batch with the International Olive Council’s (IOC) Trade Standard Applying to Olive Oils and Olive-Pomace Oils (IOC Standard) or other equivalent or recognised standard; and commission a NATA or IOC accredited laboratory within Australia to test a sample from the applicable batch against the IOC Standard or other equivalent or recognised standard; and implement a Trade Practices Compliance Program. Mr Dattilo has undertaken to the ACCC that, for a period of three years, he will: not engage in conduct that constitutes -  a contravention of section 52 and/or 53(a) of the TPA; or being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by a person of such a provision; require documentation from his suppliers demonstrating compliance with the IOC Standard and commission a further test by a NATA or IOC accreand implementdited laboratory prior to supplying edible oil; and attend practical trade practices training.

Between about March 2007 and at least March 2009, Basfoods (Aust) Pty Ltd represented via the product’s labelling and in its dealings with its customers – who were mostly delicatessens, small food retailers and restaurants – that edible oil labelled “Aigeon Oil 100% Extra Virgin Olive Oil” (Aigeon) was extra virgin olive oil (Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation). The ACCC considers that Basfoods has engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct by making the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation because the product was not, in fact, extra virgin olive oil. Basfoods admits that, by making the Extra Virgin Olive Oil Representation, it made representations about Aigeon that were false, misleading and deceptive in contravention of sections 52 and 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Basfoods has provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC that, for a period of three years, it will: not represent that a cooking oil is “extra virgin olive oil”, “virgin olive oil” or “olive oil” when it is not; prior to supplying a batch of edible oil in Australia labelled “olive oil”, “virgin olive oil” or “extra virgin olive oil –  require the producer or its supplier of the edible oil to provide a certificate of analysis, or equivalent document, demonstrating compliance of a sample from the applicable batch with the International Olive Council’s (IOC) Trade Standard Applying to Olive Oils and Olive-Pomace Oils (IOC Standard) or other equivalent or recognised standard; and commission a NATA or IOC accredited laboratory within Australia to test a sample from the applicable batch against the IOC Standard or other equivalent or recognised standard; send a letter to each person Basfoods supplied Aigeon to between March 2007 and April 2009 informing them of Basfoods’ conduct; and implement a Trade Practices Compliance Program.