126 results, showing 1 to 20
This statement of differences was given to the ACCC on 21 December 2012 by NBN Co in respect to an access agreement entered into by TasmaNet Pty Ltd with NBN Co.
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.
This statement of differences was given to the ACCC on 13 November 2012 by NBN Co in respect to an access agreement entered into by NBN Co and multiple access seekers. This access agreement contains differences from a standard form of access agreement (SFAA) as published by NBN Co (the ‘Wholesale Broadband Agreement’).
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.
In November 2012 the ACCC made final determinations in 13 access disputes in relation to the LSS and or ULLS declared services.
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).
This statement of differences was given to the ACCC on 5 November 2012 by NBN Co in respect to an access agreement entered into by AARNet Pty Ltd with NBN Co.
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.