Browse public registers

On 9 April 2012, the ACCC accepted a court enforceable undertaking pursuant to section 87B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act) (the Undertaking) from FOXTEL Management Pty Limited (FOXTEL) in relation to its proposed acquisition of AUSTAR United Communications Limited (AUSTAR) (the Proposed Acquisition).
The ACCC has accepted undertakings under section 87B from Noonkanbah Enterprise Management Company Pty Ltd (NEMCO), the operator of the Yungngora Community Store at Noonkanbah station in the Kimberley region of Western Australia.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from Telstra Corporation Limited and NBN Co Limited (the parties) in relation to proposed variations pursuant to the substantial adverse events clause in the commercial arrangements between the parties (the Definitive Agreements).
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from Edwards Essences Pty Ltd ACN 137 624 241 in respect of resale price maintenance conduct contravening section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Paul Maloney Fashion Agency Pty Ltd is a sales agent that represents designers of fashion handbags, among other goods. In April 2011 Paul Maloney Fashion Agency attempted to induce an on-line reseller not to sell handbags below the recommended retail prices specified by the handbag designer.
Under the Wing Pty Ltd is a sales agent that represents designers of fashion handbags, among other goods. In April 2011 Under the Wing attempted to induce an on-line reseller not to sell handbags below the recommended retail prices specified by the handbag designer.
Australian Workplace Services Pty Ltd (AWS) has provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC following an investigation relating to beaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC accepted court enforceable undertakings from Australian Workplace Services Pty Ltd (AWS) in respect of misrepresentations made to small businesses concerning the need for AWS's products. AWS admitted that its conduct was likely to have breached sections 52, 53(f) and 75AZC(1)(j) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and sections 18, 29(1)(l) and 151(1)(l) of the Australian Consumer Law.