{"id":14582,"date":"2023-03-24T20:38:51","date_gmt":"2023-03-25T03:38:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/bid-rigging-keltbray-to-appeal-and-so-could-squibb\/"},"modified":"2023-03-24T20:38:58","modified_gmt":"2023-03-25T03:38:58","slug":"bid-rigging-keltbray-to-appeal-and-so-could-squibb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/bid-rigging-keltbray-to-appeal-and-so-could-squibb\/","title":{"rendered":"Bid rigging: Keltbray to appeal and so could Squibb"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"-\"<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

\n

Both were among ten firms fined nearly \u00a360m by the CMA with Keltbray hit with a \u00a316m fine and Squibb a \u00a32m penalty.<\/p>\n

Keltbray said: \u201cKeltbray<\/span> strongly condemns anti-competitive practices and fully cooperated with the regulator\u2019s enquiries throughout the investigation and agreed to settle.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cAs today\u2019s release by the CMA has highlighted, Keltbray<\/span> did not instigate any infringement activity or benefit financially from the infringements, and therefore believes the intended penalty is excessive when compared to Keltbray<\/span>\u2019s level of involvement, particularly when compared to the malpractices of other organisations who did benefit financially from their activities.<\/p>\n

\u201cKeltbray<\/span> is therefore disappointed with the level of penalty which the CMA intends to impose on it and will be appealing that decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

Darren James, Chief Executive Officer said: \u201cThe reported CMA penalty is based on\u00a0Keltbray<\/span>\u2019s total group turnover,\u00a0rather than\u00a0the actual level of\u00a0culpability\u00a0relevant to the wound down subsidiary. Keltbray<\/span> is a\u00a0large, highly diversified business, with demolition representing a small proportion of total revenues. Keltbray<\/span> will be appealing today\u2019s penalty decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"-\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Squibb Group said it is in discussions with its lawyers about a possible appeal.<\/p>\n

It said: \u201cIt is disappointing that after four years of investigation, which included reviewing over 10,000 Company tenders and extensive representations by the Company, where we fully cooperated with the CMA (including a root and branch review of our historical compliance practices) that it has been determined that Squibb Group Limited has committed two acts of simple cover pricing.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn relation to the allegations of cover pricing it is also our understanding that the clients were not disadvantaged, and these two instances are considered to be at the low end of the scale of seriousness in terms of overall economic effect.<\/p>\n

\u201cFurthermore, we believe that the proposed fine (which is significantly influenced by a company\u2019s turnover) is disproportionate when seen in the context of the wider investigation and the other infringements discovered as part of the CMA investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\"-\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\"-\"<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n