COMPETITION COMMISSION WITHDRAWS CYCLE INDUSTRY PRICE-FIXING COMPLAINT

[Matt]

COMPETITION COMMISSION WITHDRAWS CYCLE INDUSTRY PRICE-FIXING COMPLAINT
Press Release: Friday 10 June 2011

The Competition Commission has sent notification that it has withdrawn its complaint against 28 retailers and wholesalers relating to alleged price-fixing in the South African bicycle industry.

Notification was sent in writing on Friday that the Competition Commission has withdrawn its “complaint referral dated 25 June 2010 in CT Case Number 32/CR/Jun10 against all respondents in this matter in terms of Rule 50 of the Rules for the conduct of proceedings in the Competition Tribunal”.

Andrew McLean, Director and founder of Cycle Lab, one of the retailers against which the complaint was made, confirmed on Friday that the complaint had been withdrawn.

“Yes, we received notification from the Competition Commission today. It’s not really a surprise and it just confirms what Cycle Lab and other retailers have stood by along. As far as Cycle Lab is concerned, there isn’t and has never been any attempt at collusion to fix prices in the South African cycle industry.

“Right from the beginning our attorneys examined this complaint and said there was no case to pursue. It’s just a pity it had to drag on so long and create an atmosphere of negativity. I would estimate this has cost the industry over R3 million in legal fees – just to prove that there was no case in the first place.

“This was a top story in the mainstream news media when the enquiry was launched, the day before the 2009 Cape Argus Pick n Pay Cycle Tour. Unfortunately this conclusion won’t even make headlines,” said McLean.

The Competition Commission first sent out notification to Cycle Lab and 27 other retailers and wholesalers in March 2009 that it had received a complaint alleging collusion and intent to adjust prices across the industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Links to this release published elsewhere have already been posted and discussed in another topic. It has been published here again in the interests of promoting awareness of the outcomes of the inquiry.
This thread has been closed for replies.