Two Seward County basketball players are recognized on the JUCO Junction top 150 list. Seward's Deverell Biggs and Daveon Boardingham make the list as two of the top players in NJCAA. Biggs is ranked number 24 and Boardingham is number 63 on the list.
The 6′ guard from Omaha Central High School Biggs averaged 14 points and four steals per game at Western Texas last year for current Saints assistant Jason Sautter. Biggs burst onto the Saints scene with 26 points, 11 rebounds, and eight assists Saturday night against God's Academy Prep School.
Boardingham is a 6'7" forward from Newark, New Jersey. The freakishly athletic Boardingham from Shabazz High School in New Jersey averaged 11 points and seven rebounds per game for the Jayhawk West champion Saints last year. He had 23 points and nine rebounds in the first half of a season opening win over the Sterling JV Friday night.
The Saints play 2-0 Highland Friday at 3:30 with coverage beginning at 3:15 on Talkradio 1270 and kscbnews.net.


Author(s): Cany, J.S.; Waart, A.B. van der; Spanholtz, J. ; Tordoir, M.; Jansen, J.H. ; Voort, R. van der ; Schaap, N.P. ; Dolstra, H.
Adoptive transfer of allogeneic natural killer (NK) cells represents a promising treatment approach against cancer, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Previously, we reported a cytokine-based culture method for the generation of NK cell products with high cell number and purity. In this system, CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) were expanded and differentiated into NK cells under stroma-free conditions in the presence of IL-15 and IL-2. We show that combining IL-15 with IL-12 drives the generation of more mature and highly functional NK cells. In particular, replacement of IL-2 by IL-12 enhanced the cytolytic activity and IFNgamma production of HPC-NK cells toward cultured and primary AML cells in vitro, and improved antileukemic responses in NOD/SCID-IL2Rgammanull (NSG) mice bearing human AML cells. Phenotypically, IL-12 increased the frequency of HPC-NK cells expressing NKG2A and killer immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR), which were more responsive to target cell stimulation. In addition, NK15/12 cell products demonstrated superior maturation potential, resulting in >70% positivity for CD16 and/or KIR within 2 weeks after infusion into NSG mice. We predict that higher functionality and faster in vivo maturation will favor HPC-NK cell alloreactivity toward malignant cells in patients, making this cytokine combination an attractive strategy to generate clinical HPC-NK cell products for cancer adoptive immunotherapy.


Use Coupon Code: freeship11. Bath and Bed, bBQ Guys m, bionaire Coupon Code, blair Clothing. Click link to activate 1-800-PetMeds coupon. September 2018 free Paid Returns; Pay No Fees free..
We may also contact Keen Bean Organic Baby Blends directly to get more information about this question. Added 4 hours ago Expires on Saturday, September 29, 2018 Coupon details More..
Your privacy is important to us, and any personal information you supply to us is kept strictly confidential. Please add " m " and " /assets-a/ " to whitelist, or..
in a smaller and more pocket friendly form. Weight:.8 oz 2 Year Limited Warranty (Excluding Glass and Battery). This thing is pretty awesome.
Arizer, coupon, codes 2018. Get 30 Off, arizer. Solo 2 Vaporizer. Coupon code is valid when used at m for a limited time. Our deals and vouchers work for top products like the.
Created:, expires: unavailable, hosted in: United States. Gift # 1 - Premium Stainless Steel Fidget Spinner. Arizer Air, manufacturer: Arizer, the Arizer Air is the follow-up to the renowned. Cbom, om, im, om, tm, mc, mh,. NEW 2018 arizer solo II Solo 2 vape device free evak JAR sweet and sassy sugar land coupons 2 DAY prime ship free aerospaced 4PC grinder free evak mini JAR 6oz 187.49 Buy It Now Free Shipping Arizer Solo II features faster heat-up time, improved airflow, and up to 20 uses. Holding a decade long reputation for great and reliable quality together with amazing price tag for a desktop vaporizer.
Some popular starter items are: Bang Bang Shrimp (8 Crispy Calamari (7 Corn Chowder with Lump Crab (3-6) and Bacon Wrapped Sea Scallops (10). 9/10) Q4 S4 V5 Total13 out.


text:
Home / First Look / First Poster / John Abraham / Wallpaper / Satyameva Jayate 2 First Look, Poster Revealed | John Abraham, Divya Khosla Kumar
Satyameva Jayate 2 First Look, Poster Revealed | John Abraham, Divya Khosla Kumar
Satyameva Jayate 2 Poster- The first look of the John Abraham starrer upcoming film 'Satyamev Jayate 2' has been revealed. The actor shared the film's poster on social media, writing, "The truth will be heavy again. The film is releasing on The next Gandhi Jayanti 2020.
The second part of the 2018 hit movie Satyameva Jayate is slated to release exactly next year on 2 October 2020 during the Gandhi Jayanti festival. John Abraham and Divya Khosla Kumar are in the leading roles. The story focuses on the fight against injustice and misuse of power.
Check The First Look of Satyameva Jayate 2
Two posters of Satyameva Jayate 2 has been released, the name of the film is written in Hindi in this poster, John is showing his chest by ripping off the police uniform, on which the tricolour is made. The punch line, dialogues of these posters is "Tan Man Dhan Se Badhkar...Jan Gan Man".
The film is being directed by Milap Zaveri, who was also the director of its first part of this film. It is co-produced by Bhushan Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Monisha Advani, Madhu Bhojwani and Nikkhil Advani. 'Satyamev Jayate' was made in a budget of around 40 crores and its collection at the box office was 89.05 crores, it was a hit film.
Fans are excited about this film, they cannot wait for the movie to hit the theatres. The film is releasing on The next Gandhi Jayanti 2020.
First Look First Poster John Abraham Wallpaper

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Let's look at the following array of objects.
The property values in each object are fairly random. You have name property almost sorted out. Age is a numerical value, whereas signedUpAt is a date type. I mentioned the solution being in the prototype of Array so let's start there.
The first argument, key, is the key we are going to use to know about the value we want to sort. Imagine you want to sort your array of objects by name or age. The key in your objects is the first argument you pass to sortBy so it can do a lookup. The secondary argument, ascending, is actually a bonus here. Since you are going to write a custom sort algorithm, why not choose the direction of the sort? There is actually a much more practical reason for it too. Normally, when you use the default sort, which sorts the values in ascending order, you can easily use the native reverse method for arrays to get values in descending order. Well, you can't do that in an array of objects, can you? That is why we are writing this code in the first place. Objects are not sortable naturally.
As you can see, we are actually piggybacking on the original sort by not comparing the whole object to the next but rather comparing the object's value for a particular key. Ignore the if block with ascending for a moment and just focus on the following line of code.
This code is very similar to the regular sort. You can find a longer explanation of it here, in the description section. As I mentioned earlier, you lose the functionality to reverse the values of a typical sort with an array of objects. That's why we need to introduce a conditional block to reverse the sort order in our function. There is, of course, a shorter way of writing it by merging the if-else block into the existing ternary statements but then it would like this, pretty unreadable.
Whether you choose the more legible piece of code or not, sorting an array of objects is actually trivial. You can now use by calling it on an ordinary array.
However, if the objects in your array are more complex and they contain objects nested inside, you can't use this method. You'd have to further break it down either manually or maybe rely on a recursive implementation. My goal in this post was to show the basic functionality, now it's up to you to change it according to your project's needs.


My data includes ~500 observations where the participants rated ILT's, reported their demographic information, and who they voted for (or would have wanted to vote for) in 2016. I have demographic information, voting behavior, and political affiliation in dummy-code data frame.
dummy.vote.frame$donald -0.6214 0.3458 -1.797 0.07293 .
I believe this is doing what I needed it to, but is there a way to alter the command so that R will run the linear model and control for gender?


text:
Our Graduate Meltem Yücel Receives the Most Outstanding Graduate Research Paper Award
Meltem Yüce, who graduated from the Department of Psychology at Özyeğin University in 2015 and started her Ph.D. at the University of Virginia, has recorded a significant achievement, making our university and our country proud.
Pursuing her doctoral studies with a concentration on the "moral development of children", Yücel has been honored with the 2020 Association for Psychological Science/Psi Chi's international Albert Bandura Graduate Research Award for the most outstanding graduate research paper in recognition of her research published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology in which she investigates the role of emotions in children's morality.
We would like to congratulate our esteemed graduate and wish her continued success.
Please see the link below for more about the study: https://news.virginia.edu/content/eyes-wide-open-new-findings-3-year-olds-react-immorality


Under the supervision of the After School Program (ASP) Co-Managers, the Youth and Family Program Support Worker (YFSW) is a skilled and self-motivated individual committed to IRCOM's mission and mandate. This staff has significant experience working with newcomer children, youth and families and has demonstrated training and skills to provide enhanced supports for those facing complex challenges. The YFSW excels at building relationships with newcomer children, youth and adults, and works effectively with all members of the family to engage them in coordinated supports.
The primary responsibility of the YFSW is to provide one-on-one and group supports and activities, as well as mentorship, to newcomer children and youth in ASP who have been identified as needing additional social, behavioural and mental health supports. The YFSW (Female) will provide role modelling and supports for female children and youth in particular. The YFSW helps children and youth build social, emotional, communication and conflict resolution skills, engages them in special projects and outings. The YFSW aims to help children and youth be well-integrated in program and be positively engaged with peers, family, school and community.


Has anyone else noticed the Big E put a thumbs up symbol next to this thread? Ha!
First failed drug test, warning.
Third failed drug test, dismissal.
The timing on everything in Buck's situation doesn't really fit any one logical scenario so this should get interesting.
Bona84 and brownindian like this.
Spiders have landed former Siena signee Jake Wojcik out of California. Yes, that Wojcik family...son of Dave and nephew of Doug.
Those six and seven-man classes are pretty untenable in today's game, unfortunately. You can almost guarantee transfers. I wonder if Mooney will redshirt two or three of them like last season; the trouble with that, though, is the grad transfer rule down the road.
1-1-4-7 is not ideal distribution?
Last edited by urmite; 05-03-2018 at 06:16 AM.
How'd we beat out Bona for a Canadian recruit?
It's not my fault the telegraph lines are out.


HARTFORD -- A Connecticut official is encouraging taxpayers scrambling to meet the income tax filing deadline to file electronically.
Department of Revenue Services Commissioner Kevin Sullivan says the free Taxpayer Service Center provides secure, electronic filing that takes the guesswork out of calculating state income tax. He says taxpayers also receive a confirmation that their return was received by DRS.
More than 1.1 million state income tax returns had been filed by April 7, with another 500,000 or more expected to be submitted by Tuesday. Officials say the majority of returns -- just over 1 million -- were filed electronically.
Sullivan says the state has already issued 600,000 refunds worth more than $403 million. He says those who filed electronically and chose direct deposit get refunds faster.


text:
8.000000000000 47.000000000000 Switzerland
Mario Strebel, Christophe Rapin and Fabian Koch
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal AG
What is the relevant legislation?
The legislation governing cartels in Switzerland is the Federal Act on Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition of 6 October 1995, as amended (the Cartel Act). The regulatory framework is complemented by several federal ordinances, general notices, guidelines and communications of the Competition Commission (the Commission).
Relevant institutions
Which authority investigates cartel matters? Is there a separate prosecution authority? Are cartel matters adjudicated or determined by the enforcement agency, a separate tribunal or the courts?
The federal authorities investigating cartel matters are the Commission and its Secretariat (the Secretariat), which are based in Berne. They are independent of the federal government. The Commission consists of 13 members and is headed by its president and the two vice-presidents. The majority of the Commission's members must be independent experts (having no interest in or special relationship with any economic group whatsoever). While investigations are conducted by the Secretariat, which also prepares the Commission's decisions, the deciding body in cartel matters is the Commission.
Based on the Commission's internal rules of procedure of 15 June 2015 that entered into force on 1 November 2015, two separate chambers of the Commission with independent decision-making power were introduced; first, a chamber for partial decisions and second, a chamber for merger control clearance. The chamber for partial decisions has been introduced in particular for the closing of hybrid cartel cases (ie, proceedings in which only some of the parties agree to close the investigation with an amicable settlement). All decisions that are not allocated to one of these two chambers shall be made by the Commission as a whole. The Secretariat is organised into four operational divisions (services) responsible for the construction sector, the service sector, the infrastructure sector and product markets. Besides, the resources and logistics division is dealing with internal administrative matters only. Each division is headed by a vice-director. In addition to these divisions, there exist a number of cross-functional competence centres that support the work of the Secretariat. The Secretariat has around 70 employees, including a significant number of economists.
Have there been any recent changes, or proposals for change, to the regime?
There have recently been several changes to the applicable regime. On 9 April 2018, the Commission amended the explanatory notes on the communication on vertical agreements in order to adapt to the landmark ruling of the European Court of Justice on third-party platform restrictions in the matter of Coty International v Parfümerie Akzente. Furthermore, on 28 February 2018 the Secretariat published for the first time guidelines on the main features of amicable settlements and an overview of the respective procedure based on article 29 of the Cartel Act (the Amicable Settlement Guidelines). The Amicable Settlement Guidelines also contain a template of the framework conditions for amicable settlement negotiations and a template of an amicable settlement agreement to be concluded with the Secretariat. In January 2019, the Secretariat revised its notice on leniency, in particular setting out that leniency markers no longer be submitted via fax, but only in writing, via email or in person. Furthermore, the COMCO has decided to extend the applicability of the communication regarding competition law treatment of vertical agreements in the motor vehicle sector for one year from end of 2022 to end of 2023. In addition, such communication has been adapted to the Elmex toothpaste cases (see question 4).
There are also some proposals for change to the regime. These proposals are set out in question 43.
What is the substantive law on cartels in the jurisdiction?
The Cartel Act prohibits unlawful restraints of competition such as anticompetitive agreements between two or more independent undertakings operating at the same or different market levels that have a restraint of competition as their object or effect (article 4(1) of the Cartel Act). Importantly, the notion of anticompetitive agreement does not only cover binding or non-binding agreements in a strict legal sense but also 'gentleman's agreements' or concerted practices such as the exchange of information in order to knowingly substitute practical cooperation for the risks of competition. To be unlawful, an agreement must either eliminate effective competition or significantly restrict competition without being justified on economic efficiency grounds (article 5(1) of the Cartel Act).
By law (article 5(3) and (4) of the Cartel Act), the following agreements are presumed to eliminate effective competition and are thus considered as hard-core restrictions (hard-core restraints):
horizontal agreements that directly or indirectly fix prices, restrict quantities of goods or services to be produced, purchased or supplied, or allocate markets geographically or according to trading partners; and
vertical agreements that set minimum or fixed prices (resale price maintenance) or allocate territories to the extent that (passive) sales by other distributors into those territories are not permitted (absolute territorial protection).
Such a presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that, as a matter of fact, effective competition is not eliminated by these agreements. If competition is not eliminated, it has to be assessed whether the agreement significantly restricts competition. In the landmark cases with regard to Gaba and Gebro in the matter of the Elmex toothpaste cases of 28 June 2016 (2C_180/2014) and 4 April 2017 (2C_172/2014) respectively, the Federal Supreme Court substantially tightened its practice with regard to hard-core restraints. The Federal Supreme Court decided that vertical and horizontal hard-core restraints as listed above in principle significantly restrict competition. The significance of the competition restraints is assumed for hard-core restraints owing to their quality without the need to examine quantitative effects such as market shares. According to the Federal Supreme Court, already a small degree of a restriction of competition suffices to constitute significance. Horizontal and vertical hard-core restraints must therefore be justified on the grounds of economic efficiency to be permissible.
Economic efficiencies justifying otherwise unlawful anticompetitive agreements include:
a reduction of production or distribution costs;
the improvement of products or production processes;
the promotion of research into or the dissemination of technical or professional know-how; and
a more rational exploitation of resources.
The strict approach adopted with the Elmex toothpaste cases has recently been confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court in its Altimum SA decision (mountaineering equipment) of 18 May 2018 (2C_101/2016). In this decision, the Federal Supreme Court also made clear that the barriers to justify otherwise unlawful anticompetitive agreements based on grounds of economic efficiency are high, in particular for hard-core restraints.
Industry-specific provisions
Are there any industry-specific infringements? Are there any industry-specific defences or antitrust exemptions? Is there a defence or exemption for government-sanctioned activity or regulated conduct?
The Cartel Act does not provide for any industry-specific offences or defences or any antitrust exemptions for government-sanctioned activity. However, pursuant to article 3(1) of the Cartel Act, statutory provisions that do not allow for competition in a certain market for certain goods or services take precedence over the Cartel Act. Such statutory provisions include, in particular, provisions that establish an official market or price system and provisions that grant special rights to specific undertakings to enable them to fulfil public duties. However, according to the Federal Supreme Court, such statutory exemptions must be interpreted narrowly.
The Cartel Act also empowers the Federal Council and the Commission to issue ordinances or general notices respectively on specific anticompetitive agreements that are, in principle, justified on efficiency grounds. Such anticompetitive agreements include:
cooperation agreements relating to research and development;
specialisation and rationalisation agreements (including agreements concerning the use of schemes for calculating costs);
exclusive distribution and purchase agreements for certain goods or services;
exclusive licensing agreements for intellectual property rights; and
agreements with the purpose of improving the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises provided that they have only a limited effect on the market.
On this basis, several general notices and communications have been published by the Commission:
On 22 May 2017, the Commission adapted its Vertical Agreements Communication in particular to the Federal Supreme Court's landmark decisions in the Elmex toothpaste cases and has additionally issued for the first time explanatory notes as an interpreting aid on 12 June 2017, as amended on 9 April 2018 (see question 4). The latter particularly also contain explanations with regard to online sales restrictions. This communication incorporates the principles developed by the Commission and the appellate courts based on article 5(4) of the Cartel Act and, in principle, seeks harmonisation with the Block Exemption Regulation 330/2010 and the related Guidelines on Vertical Restraints while taking the economic and legal specificities of Switzerland into account.
On 19 December 2005, the Commission adopted the Communication on Agreements of Minor Importance (de minimis), specifically targeting agreements between small and medium-sized enterprises to improve their competitiveness provided that the agreements are no hard-core restraints and have only a limited effect on the market.
On 1 November 2002, the Commission enacted the Motor Vehicle Communication and a brief explanatory note regarding its application. The aims of the Motor Vehicle Communication were essentially to allow the parallel importation of motor vehicles from the EU and EEA to Switzerland, to suppress the link between retail and after-sales servicing, to facilitate the sale and the parallel importation of spare parts and to give distributors more freedom in relation to multi-branding. On 1 January 2016, the Commission's revised Motor Vehicle Communication entered into force and replaced the communication of 2002.
Moreover, the Commission has published a general notice on homology and sponsoring of sports goods and another on the use of cost-calculation schemes (cost-calculation aids). The purpose of the latter, which is the much more important of the two in practice, is to distinguish lawful use of cost-calculation aids from illegal horizontal price fixing. To qualify as a lawful cost-calculation aid, the following requirements must be met:
the aid may only set out the basis for the cost calculation, but may not stipulate any flat costs;
know-how may be exchanged to allow the cost calculation; however, information on how prices are set must not be disclosed;
the parties must be free to set prices and conditions and to determine discounts in whatever form; and
price elements, discounts or consumer prices shall not be 'proposed'.
Communications of the Commission are not binding upon Swiss courts.
Finally, upon specific request by the parties subject to a decision of the Commission or the appellate courts, the Federal Council may authorise otherwise unlawful anticompetitive conduct in exceptional cases if such conduct is deemed necessary for compelling public interest reasons (article 8 of the Cartel Act). To date, such authorisation has never been granted.
Application of the law
Does the law apply to individuals, corporations and other entities?
Article 2(1)-(1bis) of the Cartel Act makes clear that any undertaking, public or private, engaged in an economic process that offers or acquires goods or services is an undertaking within the meaning of the Cartel Act and that neither the organisation nor the legal form of an undertaking is relevant.
Undertakings can be individuals- that is, natural persons - or legal entities such as corporations or associations. Individuals acting as consumers are not caught by the Cartel Act. Individuals acting as officers or employees of an undertaking are not caught by the Cartel Act for competition law infringements, only the undertaking is. Further, undertakings that perform tasks in the public interest and that are vested by law with special rights (such as the Swiss Post for specific postal services) are also (partly) exempted.
Extraterritoriality
Does the regime apply to conduct that takes place outside the jurisdiction (including indirect sales into the jurisdiction)? If so, on what jurisdictional basis?
Article 2(2) of the Cartel Act in principle codifies the international law principle of the effects doctrine. According to the landmark judgment in the Elmex toothpaste decisions, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the Cartel Act applies to all agreements and concerted practices that may have an effect within Switzerland (see question 4). Therefore, agreements concluded abroad or conduct that takes place outside Switzerland but that might have effects in Switzerland may fall under Swiss jurisdiction. In its most recent practice, the Commission imposed severe sanctions on Nikon and BMW because their European dealer agreements contained provisions prohibiting exports to countries outside the EEA. As Switzerland is not part of the EEA (and was as a result affected by those provisions), the Commission was of the opinion that these restrictions led to a foreclosure of the Swiss market. This in general is in line with the Commission's past practice to interpret effects in Switzerland broadly in a sense that the mere possibility of effects suffices. Both the BMW and Nikon decisions were upheld by the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Administrative Tribunal, respectively.
Export cartels
Is there an exemption or defence for conduct that only affects customers or other parties outside the jurisdiction?
In light of the effects doctrine set out in question 7, conduct that only affects customers or other parties outside Switzerland should, in general, not fall under Swiss jurisdiction. However, in cases where there might be repercussions on the Swiss market as, for instance, in an (re-)import scenario, the Swiss Cartel Act could nevertheless be applicable. In this context, one has to bear in mind that, based on the Elmex toothpaste decisions by the Federal Supreme Court (see question 4), the scope of the effects doctrine has been significantly widened. Not only actual effects, but also potential effects on the Swiss market are deemed sufficient to establish jurisdiction, giving the authorities considerable leeway when determining whether a specific conduct falls under Swiss jurisdiction.
Steps in an investigation
What are the typical steps in an investigation?
Cartel proceedings under the Cartel Act are in principle two-staged, consisting of a first stage preliminary investigation that may be followed by a second stage in-depth investigation. Nevertheless, the Commission may open an in-depth investigation even without going through a preliminary investigation.
The Secretariat can initiate preliminary investigations either on its own initiative, at the request of involved undertakings (eg, competitors) or based on a complaint from third parties (eg, consumers). It is at the discretion of the Secretariat to open a preliminary investigation. If the Secretariat concludes that there are indications of the elimination or a significant restriction of effective competition, it opens an investigation together with one presidium member of the Commission. The Secretariat must open an investigation if requested to do so by the Commission or by the Department of Commerce of the Swiss government. During preliminary investigations, the parties concerned have no procedural rights (that is to say, no right to consult files or records and no right to be heard). By the same token, third parties cannot bindingly request the Secretariat or the Commission to open a preliminary investigation or an investigation, respectively. The preliminary investigation shall determine whether an investigation is necessary. The decision to open an investigation does not qualify as a formal decision and hence cannot be appealed. It is on the Commission to decide, what in-depth investigation is to prioritise.
The Secretariat must announce the opening of an in-depth investigation by means of an official publication. Such announcement states the purpose of the investigation and the names of the parties involved. Furthermore, affected third parties have the possibility to join the investigation, albeit with limited procedural rights, upon a corresponding request made within 30 days of the announcement. All parties to the investigation are vested with the usual procedural rights. They may consult files and suggest witness statements and have the right to be heard and to participate in hearings. The Secretariat conducts the investigation, but the Commission has the power to intervene and to hold hearings, a right that the Commission has made frequent use of in the recent past.
The Secretariat is empowered to conduct investigations and, together with one presidium member of the Commission, to issue necessary procedural rulings. On the basis of the conducted investigation, the Secretariat brings forward a motion for a draft of a decision, which is comparable to the statement of objections in the European Union. The parties and participating third parties may comment on such draft decision. If important new facts emerge, another round of hearings and witness statements may take place. Formally, however, the decision itself is not issued by the Secretariat, but by the Commission. Accordingly, the investigating and decision-making bodies are separate, even though at least one of the presidium members of the Commission is involved in some of the investigatory actions.
An investigation can have one of the following outcomes. First, the Commission may decide that there is no evidence of an unlawful agreement and close the investigation without any consequences. Second, the formal decision of the Commission can state that an agreement or conduct is unlawful and order measures to restore effective competition or pronounce direct fines, as the case may be.
There are no statutory time limitations applying to investigations. As a rule of thumb, a preliminary investigation can take several months and a formal investigation from several months to two years or more.
Investigative powers of the authorities
What investigative powers do the authorities have? Is court approval required to invoke these powers?
The Secretariat has broad investigative powers. It may hear the parties that have allegedly committed the violation as well as third parties concerned (such as competitors or suppliers) and ask for written statements. It can compel testimony from witnesses, although not from the parties alleged to have entered into illegal anticompetitive agreements. Any hearings or witness statements must be evidenced in the minutes. The parties involved have the right to access and to comment on these minutes.
Upon specific request for information, the undertakings under investigation are also obliged to provide the Secretariat with all information required for their investigation and to produce necessary documents (article 40 of the Cartel Act), in due consideration, however, of the right against self-incrimination (nemo tenetur principle).
The competition authorities may use all kinds of evidence to establish the facts, such as documents, information supplied by third parties, testimony and expert opinions. Moreover, according to article 42(2) of the Cartel Act, the president or each vice-president of the Commission has the power to order inspections or dawn raids and seizures upon request of the Secretariat. The Federal Act on Criminal Administrative Law applies by analogy to such proceedings.
The Secretariat published a note on selected instruments of investigation in January 2016. Therein it laid out its best practice particularly with regard to inspections and the seizure of documents and electronic data. The representatives of the Secretariat in charge of the inspection will, inter alia, not wait for the arrival of external lawyers before starting to search the premises. Any evidence discovered while the external lawyers were not present will, however, be set aside and only be screened once the lawyers are present. If deemed necessary, the undertakings being dawn-raided may request the sealing of specific or even all documents and electronic data. Moreover, legal privilege applies to any document produced in the course of the (core) professional activity of independent attorneys admitted to the bar that are allowed to professionally represent parties in Swiss courts. Hence, legal privilege is not granted to work products of in-house counsel. It applies irrespective of when such document was created (ie, before or after an investigation was launched) and of where such document is located, be it in the custody of the attorney him- or herself, the client or any other third party. Legal privilege may be invoked by the attorney him- or herself, the client and also every third party having a protected document in custody.
Inter-agency cooperation
Is there cooperation with authorities in other jurisdictions? If so, what is the legal basis for, and extent of, such cooperation?
Switzerland was the first state to sign a second-generation cooperation agreement in competition matters with the European Union on 17 May 2013. This agreement is not sector-specific and constitutes the legal basis for the cooperation between the European Commission (but not the member states) and the Swiss competition authorities. It facilitates significantly the exchange of information and the transmission of documents between both authorities, subject to specific requirements. The agreement entered into force on 1 December 2014. The Cartel Act also provides for a specific regime with regard to investigations in the air transportation industry (article 42a of the Cartel Act). Such investigations are governed by the agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 21 June 1999, allowing sector-specific cooperation between the Commission and the European Commission on a formal legal basis. Moreover, on an informal basis, the Commission and its Secretariat cooperate with various national competition authorities in Europe such as the German Bundeskartellamt as well as with the US antitrust authorities. In the absence of specific future cooperation agreements, such cooperation, however, is not allowed to go beyond the exchange of non-confidential information.
Interplay between jurisdictions
Which jurisdictions have significant interplay with your jurisdiction in cross-border cases? If so, how does this affect the investigation, prosecution and penalising of cartel activity in cross-border cases in your jurisdiction?
Investigations, prosecutions and sanctions decided by antitrust authorities abroad are not legally binding for the Commission and appellate courts. However, because of the supposedly congruent legal framework as the one in the European Union, as referred to by the Federal Supreme Court in its Elmex toothpaste cases (see question 4), and the fact that such regulatory framework has often made significant inroads into the past Swiss competition law practice, its case law will have a significant impact also on future decisions taken by the Swiss authorities.
How is a cartel proceeding adjudicated or determined?
The Commission is the authority that is empowered to take decisions and remedial actions against cartels, and also to impose fines on undertakings that violate Swiss competition law. It has wide decision-making and remedial powers and can, inter alia, also issue injunctions to terminate a specific conduct or to change and modify a specific business practice. Moreover, a specific chamber of the Commission is empowered to render partial decisions on the closure of proceedings, the approval of amicable settlements including other measures, in particular fines and costs, for some of the parties while the proceeding is continued for the other parties (hybrid cartel cases; see question 2). The Secretariat is responsible for conducting investigations and preparing cases and, together with one presidium member of the Commission, to issue necessary procedural rulings (see question 9). In addition, an undertaking impeded by an unlawful restraint of competition from entering or competing in a market may request before the civil courts:
the elimination of the unlawful agreement or cartel;
an injunction against the unlawful agreement or cartel;
damages; and
restitution of unlawful profits.
Only civil courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages.
Which party has the burden of proof? What is the level of proof required?
According to the principle of investigation, which applies generally in administrative proceedings and in particular in connection with cartel proceedings, the competition authorities and the courts have to investigate the facts ex officio. This obligation to investigate extends to justifications on the grounds of economic efficiencies. Nevertheless, the parties to the investigation or proceedings before the appellate courts are obliged to cooperate in assessing the facts and circumstances. Ultimately derived from the criminal law nature of cartel proceedings and the consequent applicable presumption of innocence, it is, however, in any case for the authorities to prove that an undertaking acted, in fact, illegally by taking part in an agreement or concerted practices.
With regard to the level of proof required, as a general rule, only certainty in the sense that no reasonable doubts shall continue to exist with regard to the relevant facts is deemed sufficient. However, the existence of purely theoretical doubts does not matter. Further, according to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, exceptions to that rule only exist with regard to complex economic issues such as market definitions and substitutability questions. With regard to such issues, a prevailing probability shall suffice as required level of proof since full proof is by the nature of these matters impossible.
In recent judgments of the Federal Administrative Tribunal in the bid-rigging case against building undertakings from the canton of Aargau, it stated that a thorough assessment of the evidence is required without a reduction of the burden of proof or other facilitations, even if accusations from leniency applicants against other undertakings were submitted. The Federal Administrative Tribunal further clarified that accusations made in a voluntary report against other competitors are not sufficient evidence if the non-cooperating undertakings deny these accusations. Instead, the competition authorities must take into account all the specific circumstances of a case (eg, the statements of the undertakings that filed a voluntary report and the statements of the non-cooperating undertakings). If the situation remains unclear, further investigations and taking of evidence is needed, meaning that in practice, additional evidence that corroborates the accusation of another undertaking must be found.
Can an infringement be established by using circumstantial evidence without direct evidence of the actual agreement?
In line with the principle of free appraisal of evidence, the Commission as well as the appellate courts accept the establishing of a Cartel Act infringement by using circumstantial evidence without direct evidence of an actual agreement. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are, a priori, considered to be of equal value and can be used to fulfil the required level of proof (see question 14).
What is the appeal process?
Decisions of the Commission and, to a limited extent, interim procedural decisions also, can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Tribunal within 30 days of the notification of the decision.
The addressees of the decision have the right to appeal, whereas it is uncertain to what extent competitors, suppliers or customers have the same right. The decisive factor is whether these third parties are negatively affected by the decision of the Commission. In principle, only third parties that suffer a clearly perceptible economic disadvantage as a consequence of an anticompetitive conduct shall be regarded as parties to an investigation and thus have the legal standing to appeal a decision.
An appeal can be lodged on the following grounds: wrongful application of the Cartel Act; the facts established by the Commission and its Secretariat were incomplete or wrong; or the Commission's decision was unreasonable, a claim that is, however, rarely invoked in practice. Hence, the appeal before the Federal Administrative Tribunal is a 'full merits' appeal on both the findings of facts and law. However, in practice, the Federal Administrative Tribunal grants the Commission a significant margin of technical discretion.
Judgments of the Federal Administrative Tribunal and, to a limited extent, interim procedural decisions, may be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court within 30 days of the notification of the decision. In proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court, judicial review is limited to legal claims (ie, the flawed application of the Cartel Act or a violation of fundamental rights set forth in the Swiss Federal Constitution, in the ECHR or other international treaties). The claim that a decision was unreasonable is fully excluded and claims with regard to the finding of facts are basically limited to cases of arbitrariness.
In addition, the parties involved may at any time during and after appeal procedures request the Federal Council to exceptionally authorise specific behaviour for compelling public interest reasons (see question 5). To date, such authorisation has never been granted.
Judgments of the civil courts may ultimately be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court. If the legality of a restraint of competition is disputed before a civil court, this question shall be referred to the Commission for an expert report. However, civil courts rarely refer such cases and the Commission's expert opinion is not binding upon the civil courts.
Criminal sanctions
What, if any, criminal sanctions are there for cartel activity?
There are no direct criminal sanctions for individuals as natural persons for cartel activities. Swiss law does not provide for imprisonment for cartel conduct. However, individuals acting for an undertaking, but not the undertaking itself, violating a settlement decision, any other enforceable decision or court judgment in cartel matters may be fined up to 100,000 Swiss francs. These sanctions are time-barred after five years following the incriminating act.
Individuals who intentionally fail to comply or only partly comply with the obligation to provide information in an ongoing investigation can be fined up to 20,000 Swiss francs. Statute of limitations for these sanctions is two years following the incriminating act.
Individuals who can be fined include executives and board members, as well as all de facto managers and directors.
Civil and administrative sanctions
What civil or administrative sanctions are there for cartel activity?
From a civil law point of view, the sanction for cartel activities lies in the total or partial nullity of the agreement in question. Although generally accepted in the actual doctrine, it has not yet been confirmed that the nullity of the agreements applies ex tunc.
From an administrative law point of view, under article 49a of the Cartel Act, direct sanctions (fines) are imposed on undertakings that:
participate in a hard-core horizontal cartel according to article 5(3) of the Cartel Act (see question 4);
participate in hard-core vertical restraints pursuant to article 5(4) of the Cartel Act (see question 4); or
abuse a dominant position pursuant to article 7 of the Cartel Act.
The maximum administrative sanction is a fine of up to 10 per cent of the consolidated net turnover realised in Switzerland during the past three financial years (cumulative). The Ordinance on Sanctions lays down the method of calculation of the fines (see question 19).
Furthermore, an undertaking that violates to its own advantage an amicable settlement, a legally enforceable decision of the Commission or a judgment of the appellate courts can be fined up to 10 per cent of the undertaking's consolidated net turnover in Switzerland during the past three financial years (cumulative). In calculating the fine amount, the presumed profit arising from such unlawful practice shall be taken into due consideration.
Furthermore, an undertaking that fails to provide information or produce documents, or that only partially complies with its obligations during an ongoing investigation, can be fined up to 100,000 Swiss francs.
Since individuals acting as private undertakings fall under the Cartel Act (see question 6), they can also be fined in cartel cases, as recently shown in the Upper Valais Driving Instructor Cartel case in which the Commission sanctioned also natural persons following an amicable settlement.
Guidelines for sanction levels
Do fining or sentencing principles or guidelines exist? If yes, are they binding on the adjudicator? If no, how are penalty levels normally established? What are the main aggravating and mitigating factors that are considered?
The principle of direct sanctions is set forth in article 49a of the Cartel Act. Sentencing guidelines are laid down in the Ordinance on Sanctions. The Commission has, in addition, issued an explanatory communication. According to the principles in the Ordinance on Sanctions, the penalty must be assessed on the basis of the duration and the seriousness of the unlawful conduct, the probable profit that the undertaking has achieved as a result of its conduct and the principle of proportionality.
In a first step, the Commission determines the base amount of the fine which is up to 10 per cent of the consolidated net turnover generated on the relevant markets in Switzerland cumulatively in the preceding three business years before the illegal conduct has ended, depending on the severity and nature of the infringement.
In a second step, the base amount is increased based on the duration of the infringement.
In a third step, aggravating factors (such as, for instance, recidivism, a leading role in the illegal conduct, coercion of other cartel members, a particularly high profit as a result of the illegal conduct or non-cooperation with the authorities) or mitigating factors (such as a passive role in the illegal conduct, effective cooperation with the authorities or settlement) influence the final amount of the fine. In its recent decision in the matter Road Construction, a bid-rigging case, the Commission reduced sanctions substantially for those undertakings that agreed with cartel victims on compensation for damages (see question 42). Full immunity or a discount can also be obtained based on leniency cooperation (see question 26).
Eventually, the Commission shall ensure that the penalty imposed is proportional and that the maximum fine amount (see question 18) is not exceeded. In particular, the sanction must also be in proportion to the financial capacity of the concerned undertaking and as a matter of principle must not lead to the bankruptcy of the concerned undertaking.
Are sanctions reduced if the organisation had a compliance programme in place at the time of the infringement?
There is no statutory provision under Swiss law according to which the existence of a compliance programme would affect the level of a fine. It can be taken into consideration by the Commission when deciding on the level of fines. However, the Commission has been reluctant to do so in its recent practice. In the absence of relevant case law, it is therefore disputed whether and to what extent compliance programmes may reduce sanctions under Swiss competition law.
In the landmark case regarding Gaba of 28 June 2016 (2C_180/2014; one of the two Elmex toothpaste cases, see question 4), the Federal Supreme Court reasoned that in this case, the compliance programme that has been in place at the time of the illegal conduct had no relevance with regard to the determination of the sanction. The Federal Supreme Court argued in that regard that from a competition law perspective, compliance programs aimed at preventing anticompetitive conduct in the first place through information and training of employees. Since in this case, the illegal conduct did not involve employees at lower levels of responsibility, but by senior management personnel that entered into an unlawful contract clause, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the compliance programme could not be taken into account as a mitigating factor reducing the fine. This reasoning could be interpreted in such a way that depending on the merits of other cases, compliance programmes could indeed have a mitigating effect regarding sanctions. It remains to be seen, however, whether such argumentation will in fact be heard by the authorities. The requirements for a compliance programme in order to be taken into account as a sanction-mitigating factor will in any event be high, as has also been pointed out by the Federal Administrative Tribunal in its Nikon decision 2016. The mere existence of a compliance programme should not be enough in that regard.
A motion by Rolf Schweiger (07.3856) that aimed at providing an express legal basis for compliance programmes to have a sanction mitigating effect was written off in 2014. Also, the parliamentary initiative by Dominique de Buman (16.473) that, inter alia, addressed the same matter was withdrawn in 2017.
Are individuals involved in cartel activity subject to orders prohibiting them from serving as corporate directors or officers?
No. There is no legal basis for such disqualification under Swiss competition law.
Debarment
Is debarment from government procurement procedures automatic, available as a discretionary sanction, or not available in response to cartel infringements?
The Cartel Act contains no specific regulation on the exclusion from public procurement procedures in cases of illegal cartel conduct. However, the Swiss Public Procurement Act provides that the contracting authority may exclude undertakings from an ongoing procurement procedure or delete them from a list of qualified undertakings in cases of illegal cartel conduct. In addition, several cantonal procurement acts provide that undertakings may be banned from participating in procurement procedures for a period of several years in cases of illegal cartel conduct. However, no automatic exclusion applies at the federal or cantonal level.
Where possible sanctions for cartel activity include criminal and civil or administrative penalties, can they be pursued in respect of the same conduct? If not, when and how is the choice of which sanction to pursue made?
According to the Cartel Act, violation of an amicable settlement, a legally enforceable decision of the Commission or a judgment of the appellate courts, as well as the failure to provide information or produce documents, or the partial compliance with the obligation to provide information during an ongoing investigation, are subject to administrative or criminal fines, or both (see questions 17 and 18). Criminal prosecutions against individuals rely on similar criteria to those applied in imposing administrative sanctions. However, the roles of individuals in the violation of a decision or judgment, or the failure to comply with their obligations to provide information, as well as subjective criteria (degree of intent) are more important. Civil sanctions may be accompanied by claims for damages and reparations or restitution of unlawful profits from third parties affected by the illegal cartel activity.
Private damage claims
Are private damage claims available for direct and indirect purchasers? Do purchasers that acquired the affected product from non-cartel members also have the ability to bring claims based on alleged parallel increases in the prices they paid ('umbrella purchaser claims')? What level of damages and cost awards can be recovered?
Third parties affected by cartel conduct may sue the cartel members for damages in civil courts. Their claim is limited to the damage actually incurred; no punitive damages are available in Switzerland; the passing-on defence is not excluded in Switzerland. However, a claimant may request the remittance of illicitly earned profits. Court costs as well as legal costs, as determined by the court, must usually be borne by the losing party in the proceedings. The claimant bears the burden of proof. Under Swiss law, the main difficulties are providing specific and sufficient proof of the damage incurred and establishing the required causal nexus between the anticompetitive agreement and the damage. This is even more difficult in the case of indirect purchaser claims.
Umbrella purchaser claims have so far not played a relevant role in Swiss case law. Also in legal literature, they have barely been discussed. While in theory such claims may not be excluded as such, providing sufficient proof of the damage incurred and establishing the required causal nexus would be very difficult in case of umbrella purchaser claims.
Are class actions possible? If so, what is the process for such cases? If not, what is the scope for representative or group actions and what is the process for such cases?
Class actions are not available under Swiss law. Consumers and consumer organisations may participate in investigations before the Commission but, in general, have no legal standing before civil courts. Whether and to what extent trade associations have legal standing is a matter of dispute.
Is there an immunity programme? If so, what are the basic elements of the programme? What is the importance of being 'first in' to cooperate?
Leniency is an important aspect of cartel enforcement in Switzerland. According to the Cartel Act, an undertaking that cooperates with the Commission in view of the discovery and the elimination of a restraint of competition may benefit from full or partial immunity. Only the first applicant may enjoy full immunity and rather high thresholds apply.
The leniency programme particularly applies to (horizontal and vertical) hard-core restraints. The Commission may grant full immunity from a fine if an undertaking is the first to either:
provide information enabling the Commission to open an investigation and the Commission itself did not have, at the time of the leniency filing, sufficient information to open a preliminary investigation or an investigation; or
submit evidence enabling the Commission to prove a hard-core restraint, provided that no other undertaking must already be considered first leniency applicant qualifying for full immunity and that the Commission did not have, at the time of the leniency filing, sufficient evidence to prove an infringement of the Cartel Act in connection with the denounced conduct.
However, immunity from a fine will not be granted if the undertaking:
coerced any other undertaking to participate in the infringement and was the instigator or ringleader;
does not voluntarily submit to the Commission all information or evidence in its possession concerning the illegal anticompetitive practice in question;
does not continuously cooperate with the Commission throughout the investigation without restrictions or delay; or
does not cease its participation in the Cartel Act infringement voluntarily or upon being ordered to do so by the competition authorities.
In September 2014, the Secretariat published a revised notice on leniency, which included a form for leniency applications. The notice was slightly revised in August 2015 and again in January 2019.
The Cartel Act does not expressly regulate the possibility for the Commission to withdraw immunity after it has been granted in a final decision. However, general principles of administrative procedural law usually enable administrative authorities to withdraw or amend final decisions (including final decisions with regard to immunity) under certain exceptional circumstances, for example, if facts are discovered that justify withdrawal, amendment or a final decision is unjustified. There is no cartel specific case law in that regard. However, the bar for immunity revocation has to be set very high.
In addition, no fine will be imposed if undertakings notify a possible hard-core restraint before it produces any effects (notification procedure). For that purpose, the Commission has published specific filing forms. In contrast, a sanction may be imposed if the Commission communicates to the notifying undertakings the opening of a preliminary investigation or the opening of an in-depth investigation (see question 9) within a period of five months following the notification and the undertakings continue to implement the notified restriction.
Subsequent cooperating parties
Is there a formal programme providing partial leniency for parties that cooperate after an immunity application has been made? If so, what are the basic elements of the programme? If not, to what extent can subsequent cooperating parties expect to receive favourable treatment?
Pursuant to the Ordinance on Sanctions and the notice on leniency, full immunity is limited to the 'first in'. Going in second or later in the same investigation will only allow for partial immunity. A reduction of up to 50 per cent of the fine amount calculated according to the method explained in question 19 is available at any time in the proceeding to undertakings that do not qualify for full immunity. Further, the fine amount can be reduced up to 80 per cent if an undertaking provides information to the Commission about other hard-core restraints that were unknown to the Commission at the time of their submission ('leniency plus'). This reduction is without prejudice to any possible full immunity or partial reduction of a fine for the newly disclosed infringements. The continuous cooperation with the Commission throughout the investigation without restrictions or delay is also an indispensable requirement for receiving a partial fine reduction. The decisive factor for determining the reduction percentage is the importance of the undertaking's contribution to the success of the proceedings (the position in the queue is not per se relevant).
Going in second
How is the second cooperating party treated? Is there an 'immunity plus' or 'amnesty plus' option?
Being the second or third or subsequent cooperating party will not allow for full, but only partial immunity (see question 27). However, as the decisive factor for determining the leniency bonus is the contribution to the success of the proceedings, being second alone does not guarantee a better bonus than the one for the subsequent cooperating parties.
In addition, there is a leniency plus option (see question 27).
Approaching the authorities
Are there deadlines for initiating or completing an application for immunity or partial leniency? Are markers available and what are the time limits and conditions applicable to them?
There are no statutory deadlines for submitting leniency applications or for perfecting a leniency marker. However, pursuant to the Cartel Act, full immunity is limited to the 'first in' but also possible for cooperation that enables the Commission to prove a Cartel Act infringement and therefore when an investigation has already been opened and a dawn raid conducted (see questions 26 and 27). Therefore, it is important to decide immediately upon knowledge of an opened investigation and conducted dawn raid whether to cooperate with the competition authorities and, if such cooperation is desired, to submit a leniency marker or application to the Commission without delay (in writing, such as by email, or orally by protocol declaration). Importantly, it is not possible to submit a leniency marker via telephone or fax (with regard to submission via fax transmission, the regime changed in January 2019). According to past investigations with several leniency applicants, it may be a matter of days or even hours whether and which undertaking may qualify for full immunity.
What is the nature, level and timing of cooperation that is required or expected from an immunity applicant? Is there any difference in the requirements or expectations for subsequent cooperating parties that are seeking partial leniency?
The voluntary submission of all information or evidence in the applying undertaking's possession concerning the unlawful practice, the continuous cooperation with the Commission throughout the investigation without restrictions or delay as well as discontinuing its involvement in the infringement no later than the moment at which it provides information or submits evidence concerning the unlawful practice or upon receipt of the first injunction of the Commission are indispensable requirements for receiving full or partial reduction of the fine (see questions 26 and 27).
In its recent practice, the Secretariat has repeatedly insisted that a leniency applicant must at least admit its involvement in an unlawful agreement subject to potential sanctions. It made clear that it is not sufficient to simply produce factual elements. In the Secretariat's view, a leniency applicant would in principle have to admit that the unlawful agreement had effects on the markets. However, the recent decisions of the Federal Administrative Tribunal in the Metal Fittings for Windows case clearly state the right of the leniency applicants to argue against the Commission's legal interpretation of the facts. Only two of these three judgments have not yet become final and been handed down to the Federal Administrative Tribunal again by the Federal Supreme Court.
Where an undertaking does not meet these conditions, but has cooperated with the Commission and terminated its involvement in the infringement no later than the time at which it submitted evidence, the Commission still has the possibility to reduce the sanction.
What confidentiality protection is afforded to the immunity applicant? Is the same level of confidentiality protection applicable to subsequent cooperating parties? What information will become public during the proceedings and when?
The right of access to witness statements, hearing minutes and other documents relevant to the investigation may be limited to protect cooperating parties. The level of confidentiality protection is the same for all leniency applicants. Anonymous leniency applications are allowed, although the leniency applicant will be required to reveal its identity within a specific time frame established by the Secretariat on an ad hoc basis.
The Commission and the Secretariat are aware of a leniency applicant's particular need for confidentiality and, in the recent past, have established several measures to protect the leniency applicants' interests in that regard. However, these measures have not been tested in court so far. The catalogue of protective instruments includes the possibility to submit oral leniency statements, paperless proceedings and restricted access to the files. Access rights of other parties subject to an investigation were, in the Secretariat's practice, limited to access the files at the premises of the Secretariat. The right to take photocopies was limited to annexes, while copies of the main body of corporate statements or hearing minutes were not allowed. In addition, access to the files was only granted shortly before the Secretariat provided the Commission and the parties with the draft decision (ie, shortly before the end of an investigation and the Commission's decision on the merits). The Secretariat has also implemented a number of specific internal measures to protect the leniency applicants' interests. Internal access to the file is restricted, and only the case team knows about the existence or identity of leniency applicants. Moreover, the leniency documents are stored in a separate file. The above practice has been set out by the Secretariat in the notice on leniency.
With judgments of August 2016, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal has authorised the Commission to grant access to certain data of a closed cartel investigation regarding a bid-rigging cartel in the construction sector to municipalities seeking civil damage claims. In doing so, the tribunal limited the access to files in various respects: first, data may only be accessed to the extent necessary, not allowing data retention for later use. Second, access is to be limited to data that 'directly affects' the requesting party. Third, access may only be granted and data may only be used to serve the purpose disclosed in the access request and a legally binding restriction of use must be imposed on the requesting party to that effect. Fourth, access to the files must not include data of undertakings that finally had not been addressees of the decision. The tribunal, however, did not have to decide on information requests of private undertakings where the conditions applied by the court could all the more be relevant. Also, the tribunal did not have to formally decide on the issue of access to leniency application data since the Commission excluded all leniency information before providing it to the municipalities. However, the tribunal did at least not question this practice of the Commission to exclude leniency information completely from access by third parties. Whether these third parties are public or private entities should have no bearing.
In the case of opening an investigation, the Secretariat gives notice by way of official publication. The notice states the purpose of and the parties to the investigation. There is no express obligation to keep the identity of the leniency applicants confidential. In practice, the Secretariat keeps the leniency applicant's identity confidential as long as possible. However, even if the final decision does not reveal the name of the leniency applicant, it is not excluded that a party familiar with the facts of the case may deduce its identity from the context. In addition, the competition authorities' publications must not reveal any business secrets.
Does the investigating or prosecuting authority have the ability to enter into a plea bargain, settlement or other binding resolution with a party to resolve liability and penalty for alleged cartel activity? What, if any, judicial or other oversight applies to such settlements?
Amicable settlements are an important feature of the Swiss cartel enforcement regime. During preliminary investigations, the Secretariat may propose measures to eliminate or prevent restrictions of competition. In the framework of an investigation, if the Secretariat considers that a restraint of competition is unlawful, it may propose to the undertakings involved an amicable settlement concerning ways to eliminate future restrictions. Hence, amicable settlements solely deal with an undertaking's conduct in the future, meaning that a party can voluntarily undertake to terminate respectively not to commit certain illegal conduct any more. However, the fine amounts to be imposed for illegal conduct in the past cannot be agreed on - Swiss competition law does contemplate plea bargaining. This also means that, in principle, an undertaking is allowed to appeal against a decision of the Commission and the imposed fine even if it has entered into an amicable settlement. It would be inadmissible to request a formal waiver of a party's right of appeal. Nonetheless, in practice, the Secretariat requests a party to a settlement agreement to confirm in writing that no grounds to appeal the final decision exist if the Commission will finally approve such agreement and does not exceed the framework of a possible fine set out therein; such requested memorandum of understanding should also be deemed to be void.
Amicable settlements shall be formulated in writing and approved by the Commission, typically in its decision on the merits. The Commission shall either approve the amicable settlement as proposed by the Secretariat, or refuse to do so and send it back to the Secretariat and suggest amendments. According to the Commission, it cannot amend the terms of a settlement on its own. However, it did so in one case, namely by setting a time limit to the amicable settlement.
Amicable settlements are binding upon the parties and the Commission and may give rise to administrative and criminal sanctions in the case of a breach of any of its provisions by the parties. Amicable settlements do not hinder the Commission from imposing fines on the parties if they have committed illegal hard-core infringements in the past. Yet concluding an amicable settlement is generally regarded as cooperative conduct and is taken into account as a mitigating factor when calculating the fine. In recent cases, reaching an amicable settlement has led to a reduction of the fines of about 10 to 20 per cent. However, the Commission takes the moment of the amicable settlement very much into account. In a late settlement case, the Commission only reduced the fine by 3 per cent and indicated that it would not reduce fines any more if amicable settlements are signed after the Secretariat's second draft decision. According to the Amicable Settlement Guidelines (see question 3), a fine reduction will no longer be granted in case of a settlement after the second draft decision has been served, if any.
Corporate defendant and employees
When immunity or partial leniency is granted to a corporate defendant, how will its current and former employees be treated?
There is no effect on employees of the defendant. They are not addressees of administrative sanctions. However, employees might be subject to criminal penalties if they committed a corresponding offence in connection with the undertaking's conduct leading to the administrative sanction (for instance, fraud or forgery of a document). The granting of immunity or partial leniency concerning a corporate defendant has, in principle, no effect in this regard.
Dealing with the enforcement agency
What are the practical steps for an immunity applicant or subsequent cooperating party in dealing with the enforcement agency?
The Secretariat will acknowledge receipt of the leniency application (ie, the leniency marker, if any, or the leniency statement). It will specify the exact date and time of receipt and, in case of a leniency marker, the time frame within which the undertaking shall perfect such leniency marker with a full corporate statement. Subsequently and with the consent of one presidium member of the Commission, the Secretariat will communicate to the applicant whether it deems that the conditions for full immunity from fines are met, any additional information that the disclosing undertaking should submit and, in cases of anonymous disclosure, the time frame within which the undertaking shall reveal its identity.
What information or evidence is disclosed to a defendant by the enforcement authorities?
While during the preliminary investigation procedure, there is no right of access to file, the defendant has such right after the opening of an investigation. The files include submissions from parties and the comments made thereon by the authorities, any documents serving as evidence as well as copies of rulings already issued. The authority may under certain conditions - for example, owing to essential public or private interests - refuse access to a file. In particular, access to a file may be limited with respect to business secrets as well as information regarding leniency applications of other parties (see question 31).
Representing employees
May counsel represent employees under investigation in addition to the corporation that employs them? When should a present or past employee be advised to obtain independent legal advice or representation?
Under Swiss law, counsel may represent the employees under investigation as well as the undertaking provided that it discloses the fact to both parties and that there is no conflict of interest. Given that two different kinds of sanctions apply to individuals and undertakings, as a general rule, it is advisable to seek independent legal advice and representation. This seems all the more relevant since according to recent (and heavily criticised) practice of the Secretariat, with the exception of actual (formal or de facto) board members of an undertaking, current and past employees are treated as third parties (witnesses or informants), but not as party representing the concerned undertaking.
Multiple corporate defendants
May counsel represent multiple corporate defendants? Does it depend on whether they are affiliated?
Under the Cartel Act, the Commission may require groups of more than five parties in a cartel proceeding to appoint a common representative, provided that these parties have identical interests and if otherwise the investigation would be unduly complicated. In practice, the Secretariat mainly applies this rule in cases involving trade associations, and provided that the members of such trade associations agree to one representative.
Payment of penalties and legal costs
May a corporation pay the legal penalties imposed on its employees and their legal costs?
Corporations can pay the legal costs of their employees. However, the employees remain personally liable for any imposed criminal sanctions (see question 17).
Are fines or other penalties tax-deductible? Are private damages awards tax-deductible?
With a judgment of September 2016, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that fines and other sanctions of a criminal nature are not tax-deductible for legal entities, as they are not deemed to be business-related expenses that would be tax-deductible under Swiss law. According to the Federal Supreme Court, tax deductibility is only possible insofar as fines aim at disgorging illegally obtained profits (ie, fines that do not have a criminal or punitive purpose, but aim at correcting an unlawful situation). It is thus essential for Swiss (corporate) income tax purposes to distinguish sanctions with a penal nature from such aiming at disgorging illegally obtained profits. The Federal Supreme Court handed down the judgment to the lower instance to assess this question in light of the facts of the case. The judgment was rendered in a case of violation of EU competition law. The same outcome may be expected in case of violations of the Cartel Act.
In this context, it is noteworthy that in a draft bill submitted to the Swiss parliament, an explicit legal basis provides that financial administrative sanctions of criminal nature, such as direct fines under the Cartel Act, as well as the related cost of proceedings, shall not be deductible, whereas profit disgorgement sanctions with non-penal purpose, shall be tax-deductible. The matter is currently still pending before the Swiss parliament.
Private damages awards that take place in the ordinary course of business qualify in principle as business expenses and are deductible from profit taxes.
International double jeopardy
Do the sanctions imposed on corporations or individuals take into account any penalties imposed in other jurisdictions? In private damage claims, is overlapping liability for damages in other jurisdictions taken into account?
It is in the Commission's discretion to take into account sanctions imposed in other jurisdictions. The Commission states in its explanatory communication on the Ordinance of Sanctions that for the sake of reasonability of sanctions, it may consider administrative sanctions imposed outside Switzerland. However, there is no statutory obligation in this respect and, so far, the Commission has not considered foreign sanctions as a mitigating factor in its case law. In private damage claims, it could be argued that damages paid for the same conduct in another jurisdiction could be taken in consideration in order to determine the effective damage of the party.
Getting the fine down
What is the optimal way in which to get the fine down?
Generally, the best way to influence the level of fines is to fully cooperate with the competition authorities as early as possible and to disclose all relevant facts. An undertaking cooperating with the competition authorities in view of the discovery and the elimination of a restraint of competition will in principle enjoy full or partial immunity (see question 26). Moreover, a settlement with the authority may also result in a reduction of the potential fine (see question 32).
Further, it is more important than ever for undertakings whose activities may produce effects in Switzerland to be fully aware of the potential implications of Swiss competition law for their agreements and practices. It is often advisable for undertakings active in Swiss markets to implement an effective antitrust compliance programme or to undertake a competition law-related due diligence of their agreements or practices to identify possible violations of Swiss competition law, and to take appropriate measures to reduce their potential exposure to investigations and fines.
There is no statutory provision under Swiss law according to which the existence of a compliance programme would affect the level of a fine. It can be taken into consideration by the Commission when deciding on the level of fines. However, the Commission has been reluctant to do so in its recent practice and there is no legal certainty as to the sanction-mitigating effect of a compliance programme (see question 20).
42 What were the key cases, judgments and other developments of the past year?
In particular, the following cases are of relevance in this section, for a different reason in each case (listing in chronological order):
In February 2019, the Commission sanctioned two concrete and gravel producers in its KTB-Werke decision with a fine of 22 million Swiss francs in total for price fixing and allocating markets geographically. According to the Commission, the two undertakings agreed on their price lists, exchanged information on their volume discounts and provided for a common gravel and concrete contribution. Furthermore, they granted their customers certain discounts only if they sourced all the gravel and concrete from them. They also operated a joint collection agency for the calculation and payment of the rebates and discounts through which they exchanged detailed volume and price information.
In March 2019, the Commission decided on the Upper Valais Driving Instructor Cartel case. This case seems remarkable because it involves also the sanctioning of natural persons, that is, driving instructors, for partaking in illegal price fixing conduct.
Following a decision by the European Commission in the same matter in May 2019, the Commission concluded amicable settlements with several banks regarding the cartels Three Way Banana Split and Essex Express in June 2019. The cartels concern the partial coordination of conduct in foreign exchange spot markets regarding certain currencies by the involved banks or their traders, respectively. Interestingly, the coordination took place by use of a chat function. As sanction, the Commission imposed fines of about 90 million Swiss francs on the concerned undertakings. One undertaking, UBS, has been granted full immunity based on its first leniency application. The investigation against Credit Suisse is still pending.
In July 2019, the chamber for partial decisions of the Commission sanctioned eight financing companies with sanctions in the total amount of 30 million Swiss francs for inadmissible information sharing regarding interest rates. With the exception of one undertaking, against which the investigation is still ongoing, the investigations were terminated with amicable settlements. One undertaking, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Schweiz AG, qualified for full immunity under the leniency programme.
Also in July, the chamber for partial decisions of the Commission concluded its investigation against Lloyds and Rabobank based on an amicable settlement involving sanctions for inadmissible information sharing regarding yen interest rate derivatives based on the yen Libor. Further investigations regarding yen interest rate derivatives against other banks are still ongoing.
In September 2019, the Commission decided on the two last of overall 10 investigations in the Canton of Grison in the construction sector. These decisions concerned the Road Construction matter and the Engadin II matter, of which in particular the Road Construction seems of wider interest. Eight of the 12 construction companies involved in the Road Construction matter submitted leniency applications or acknowledged the facts of the case. This led to a fine reduction of 14 million Swiss francs. Furthermore, nine of the concerned undertakings entered into settlement agreements with cartel victims regarding compensation for damages in the total amount of 6 million Swiss francs. Based thereon, the Commission reduced the fine for these nine undertakings by 3 million Swiss francs in total. The sanction reduction owing to settlement agreements with cartel victims in an ongoing investigation is unprecedented in Swiss law. In the end, the Commission fined the 12 construction companies a total of 11 million Swiss francs for bid rigging.
Regime reviews and modifications
43 Are there any ongoing or anticipated reviews or proposed changes to the legal framework, the immunity/leniency programmes or other elements of the regime?
With regard to regime reviews and modifications, in particular the following from the competition law pipeline of the Swiss legislator must be mentioned:
Fair price initiative/indirect counterproposal: The federal popular initiative 'Stop the high price island - for fair prices (fair price initiative)' was submitted on 12 December 2017. The initiative promises to create the basis for effective legal measures against abusive Swiss surcharges and to guarantee the non-discriminatory procurement of goods and services abroad. It demands that undertakings that are dependent on other undertakings be able to purchase goods or services offered in Switzerland and abroad in the country of their choice at the prices that are practised there. This is to be achieved by introducing the concept of 'relative market power' into the Cartel Act. The initiative also calls for Swiss consumers to be able to shop online without discrimination. On 29 May 2019, the Federal Council submitted its message and the draft federal resolution in response to this initiative to the Swiss parliament. Therein, it recommends the rejection of the popular initiative together with an indirect counterproposal based on the concept of relative market power and only regulating import issues.
The motion by Pirmin Bischof of 30 September 2016 'Prohibition of adhesion contracts of online booking platforms against the hotel industry' calls on the Federal Council to submit the necessary legislative amendments in order to prohibit 'narrow price parity clauses' in the contractual relationship between online booking platforms and hotels. Narrow price parity clauses allow hotels to vary their prices depending on the booking platform and in all offline booking channels. However, they may not undercut the contracting party on their own website. In its decision on online booking platforms for hotels, the Commission qualified ' broad price parity clauses', with which the online booking platforms prohibited the affiliated hotels from offering their rooms on a different distribution channel at a lower price than on the participating online booking platform, as unlawful competition agreements within the meaning of article 5(1) of the Cartel Act. The Commission left the question open whether the narrow price parity clauses introduced by booking platforms throughout Europe are admissible under Swiss competition law. Furthermore, it reserved the right to investigate in this regard if required. On 18 September 2017, the Swiss parliament passed the motion on to the Federal Council. The Federal Department on Economic Affairs, Education and Research is currently elaborating a consultation draft in this matter which is expected in autumn 2019.
The motion Fournier of 15 December 2016 'Improvement of the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises in competition law proceedings' calls on the Federal Council to amend the provisions of the Cartel Act in order to, inter alia, simplify and speed up competition law proceedings, grant parties compensation for their costs and expenses and provide a milder sanction regime for small and medium-sized enterprises. The first two points have been accepted by the Swiss parliament. The Federal Department on Economic Affairs, Education and Research is currently elaborating a consultation draft in this regard.
The Schneider-Schneiter motion of 15 December 2017 'Geoblocking. Will Switzerland miss the boat again? Task force on digital free trade now!' calls on the Federal Council to set up a task force on digital free trade in order to be able to remove trade barriers such as geoblocking as soon as possible. The motion is still pending in the Swiss parliament.
The motion by Français Olivier of 13 December 2018 'The revision of the Cartel Act must take into account both qualitative and quantitative criteria to assess the inadmissibility of a competition agreement' calls on the Federal Council to amend article 5 of the Cartel Act in response to the Elmex toothpaste cases (see question 4).
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd (MLL) is one of the most reputable international business law firms in Switzerland. With its 100 experienced and dynamic lawyers and offices in Zurich, Geneva, Zug, Lausanne and Brussels, MLL provides efficient solutions for its domestic and international clients in all areas of business law.
View more information about Meyerlustenberger Lachenal AG
Mario Strebel
mario.strebel@mll-legal.com
Christophe Rapin
christophe.rapin@kellerhals-carrard.ch
Fabian Koch
fabian.koch@mll-legal.com
Schiffbaustrasse 2, PO Box 1765
1 rue de Bourg, PO Box 5379
Other Switzerland chapters in Compliance
Patrick Bock and Kenneth S Reinker
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Dominance addresses the most relevant questions on dominance and market power. Expert local insight in jurisdictions worldwide, covering: applicable legislation, sector-specific controls, scope of application and publi…
Neil McInnes and David Hamilton
Pinsent Masons LLP
This publication is a tool intended to educate both financial institutions and non-financial institutions and to increase awareness of the various regimes and regulatory hurdles that countries across the globe are erecting to s…
Risk & Compliance Management
Daniel Lucien Bühr
Lalive
Risk & Compliance Management addresses the growing awareness in organisations of their legal risks and of the pressing need for diligent risk management. Topics covered include: definitions, laws, standards and guidelines; prin…
Holly J Gregory
Sidley Austin LLP
A summary of the pertinent aspects of company law and corporate governance practices worldwide, provided by local experts and touching upon: sources of governance rules and practice, government agencies and shareholder activist…


This will be a quick post, no real need to go into deep detail. This is something that's important and a lot of people ask me about so I want to make sure everyone has a clear understanding of what's going on.
Let's start. There are 3 ways to check keyword search volume with Google: broad, phrase, and exact match. What the hell is the difference? And which one should you be checking search volume with?
The point of this post is that it is easy to be deceived by broad and phrase match data, so you should use exact match data when searching for niches. When trying to get ranked for certain keywords, you cannot guarantee that you will be able to rank for all variations and combinations of keywords, so the most realistic estimate of possible traffic is the exact match search volume data.
I'll post more this weekend, I have some cool ideas in the works.
That was good info.I stupidly misunderstood this style of searching thinking that people who actually typed "keyword" or [keyword]into SE's was how these results came about as opposed to simply searching – keyword – Stupid.
Is there a way however to search for what people type with phrase or exact match involved – ie they actually type "keyword" or [keyword]?.. with the phrase or exact match characters?
omg i can't stress how important this post is. Alot of people teach broad or phrase and it drives me crazy and i have been so stupid in the past following along and have wasted so much time and money on kewyword domains that get hardly any traffic.
I have since changed and did a quick seach to get some confirmation on this to find this post. seriously this is an awesome post. Short and sweet but could save others heaps of money and time.
This truly is a very important post as it is very important to differentiate between the three data sets.
I am in a competition for niche sites and I stupidly did my keyword research incorrectly. It turns out the exact match searches are VERY low for my niche.
It is imperative that people click the check boxes in the options, however, instead of just typing in the keywords in quotes or brackets.
Thanks for the info! I blindly made a huge mistake putting in immense effort into getting one of my sites ranked which is based on a keyword which has a nice 4.4k broad searches, but only less than 10 exact searches… Damn!
Thanks for the info again!
Great post, just one problem. The phrase match example "sunflower seeds" will not match to "sunflower guide for seeds." Phrase matching does not allow the phrase to be interrupted with other words. Any other words can come before or after the phrase, but the phrase must remain intact. Just do a few searches with quotes around your phrase and you will confirm this. There are new modifiers to read about that allow you to get even more granular.
dude, good catch. I'll update the post tonight to be more accurate. Thanks!
That's exactly my question as well..
What if i want to target a long tail keyword.
Like it best toy shop in Newyork and i am getting 4000 searches in phrase search and 50 in exact should i go for targeting this keyword or should leave it just coz the exact searches are really less?
Please help i am wasting a lot of time on this stuff and yet not clear?
This is good info. I had been using broad match but exact is the way I think I need to go.
Very clear explanation. This post will help a lot of people from targeting the wrong keyword. Unfortunately I had to learnb this lesson the hard way. I targeted a KW which had good 'broad' searches but didn't pau any attention on the 'exact' count, which was less than 200 by the way. Short story, I got the website ranked on the first page out of 92M results but the site was a flop. Had to let it go eventually.
Very good post that explains the resolution or granularity of the search whereby exact phrase match returns search terms closest and align to the keyword phrase search. I think for SEO purpose it is best to focus on either exact match and phrase match.
They always distrubed me when I sort out my adwords campaign and this morning I thought I am going to google and look what they exactly means. I think you couldn't explain this better. Now, that article should save me a lot of wasted clicks. Thanks again.
That was good job and clear article every one must read this article. thanks for this post.
So we should look seo keywords whit exact match settings ?
In terms of backlinking, maybe use phrase match terms?
This was very helpful, thanks. I also like the way you made the Google image, a nice quick visual reminder there. I'm tempted to make it my desktop background for the next month…but I think I'm just going to stick with using "exact" searches from now on.
Thank you for the post! I'm in the process of developing the forklift SEO campaign for my company and I've always wondered the differences.
Pingback: Is Creating Niche Websites Making Money? My Micro Niche Websites Will!
Hey Darrin awesome info you cleared up some of my misunderstandings. But if I am trying to rank for a certain keyword phrase won't i get lost in all the other broad search junk and miss the first page?


text:
282 (двеста осемдесет и втора) година преди новата ера (пр.н.е.) е година от доюлианския (Помпилийски) римски календар.

Събития

В Римската република
 Консули са Гай Фабриций Лусцин и Квинт Емилий Пап.
 Подновен е конфликта с боиите.
 Етруските са победени от римляните в битката при Популония.
 Римляните поставят гарнизон в Региум на протока между Италия и Сицилия.
 Рим помага на гръцката колония Турии да се справи с натиска на луканите и поставя гарнизон в града, което притеснява съседния град Тарент.
 Подстрекавани от демагога Филохар жители на Тарент нападат римска ескадра от 10 кораби в пристанището на града като потапят пет и пленяват един, а тарентската армия принуждава римляните да се оттеглят от Турии. Рим започва приготовления за война.

В Йонийско море
 Тарент предоставя военноморска помощ на епирския цар Пир, за да може той да си възвърне контрола над Коркира.

В Мала Азия
 Селевк I Никатор напада владенията на Лизимах в Мала Азия.
 Убийството на сина на Лизимах Агатокъл (283/2 пр.н.е.) дава сигнал на влиятелни личности в царството да търсят начини да прехвърлят лоялността си към Селевк като сред тях е управителят на Пергам Филитер.

Починали
 Агатокъл, син на Лизимах

Бележки:

Източници

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The following online application form is powered by Olivia123 (ACN 132 483 179) and may be used to apply for units in the Newgate Real Estate and Infrastructure Fund.
Once completed, your application will be received by the Administrator for review and processing.
If you have any questions or require assistance with the online application form please contact Olivia123 during your application process via the feedback button or online chat facility.
As you have filled in previous applications, would you like to select one to prefill your new application?
As you have a list of clients, would you like to select one to prefill your new application?
We couldn't retrieve the application!
Your application id can be found on the email we sent to you when you started the application process.
If you don't have your application id, you can simply visit your application dashboard while logged in to continue any application you've already started.
It is a legal requirement that all investors download and read the current offer documents for the Newgate Real Estate and Infrastructure Fund prior to proceeding.
The minimum investment amount for the Newgate Real Estate and Infrastructure Fund is $25,000 for new investors or $10,000 for existing investors.
This fund is open to Retail investors from Australia and overseas EXCEPT the US.
If you've forgotten your password, first enter your email address above then click the "Forgot password" button.
If you don't have an existing account, please provide your details so we can contact you about your application.
We have found an existing account matching your details.
Please click the login now button. If you've forgotten your password, you will be able to reset it from the login section.
* In this fund only.
For assistance completing this form please call OLIVIA123 on 02 8022 8494 or use the Contact Us online chat function.


In spite of his memory loss, the crimson reploid can't help but feel attracted to the apparition's presence.
It smiles, emerald eyes observing the newly-awakened hunter. "Do you remember?"
Watching the sun set over the cliffs had become a tradition of theirs, but it felt different this time.
As if something was coming to an end.
To conquer is a sinful morsel of dessert that satiates his desire, so conquer he will. The wait for the perfect target is arduous and grating, but the sensual baritones of an electric saxophone quell the simmering oil— he is patient. The prey will come.
Zero is alone in the wastes.
Zero is the maker of many of X's firsts.
Zero wants to stop smiling but he can't. X is so... innocent. Zero presses his lips on X's crimson gem, muttering. "Besides, I don't plan on getting a lover any time soon."
Zero never thought X would come to him of all people to experiment.
"If he had only pushed me away..." X whispered, lowering his hands for teardrops to falls down his eyes.
"You're forced to come here and fight because the Nightmares happened!" X frowned, pushing away. "If you weren't my best friend then maybe you wouldn't have-!"
"X." Zero growled, forcing X to face him. X immediately covered his mouth.
I've been... acting different lately. I...I'm spending most of my time researching how to make you happy." The blue hunter closed his eyes, confessing without any care to whoever listens in on their conversation. Zero's eyes widened, surprised at the revelation.