Antimonopoly Act Violation Case Involving a Group Company and Measures to Prevent Recurrence
First written in FY2016. 4 of 6 entries say "Materialised", first in FY2017. Latest entry: FY2021.
ENEOS Holdings moved to the "Worse" side of this theme in 2017.
The whole theme swung hardest in 2020: 2 of 8 companies on the "Worse" side.
0 other companies' latest entry also says "Dropped".
- FY2021DroppedAnnual reportThe NIPPO antitrust violation case reported through the previous fiscal year could not be confirmed in the business conditions or risk disclosures in this report.
- FY2020MaterialisedAnnual report
「By a notice dated 30 July 2019, the company was informed by the Japan Fair Trade Commission that, although it had been found to have engaged in conduct violating the Antimonopoly Act in connection with the sale prices of asphalt mixtures, it had been granted leniency under the surcharge reduction and immunity system and would not be ordered to pay a surcharge.」
A new finding of an antitrust violation involving NIPPO occurred. While receiving leniency under the surcharge reduction and immunity system, the Company resolved to implement and is implementing measures to prevent recurrence, including establishing a monitoring framework, developing internal regulations and raising awareness. - FY2019MaterialisedAnnual report
「The company received a cease-and-desist order and a surcharge payment order from the Japan Fair Trade Commission for antitrust violations in bids for pavement work ordered by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and other parties. As a result, on 7 June 2018, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism imposed a 30-day business suspension under the Construction Business Act, from 22 June 2018 through 21 July 2018.」
Regarding NIPPO's antitrust violation case, in addition to the cease-and-desist order and surcharge payment order, a 30-day business suspension was imposed. The Company continues to review its regulations and manuals and conduct monitoring to prevent recurrence. - FY2018MaterialisedAnnual report
「In connection with antitrust violations in bids for pavement work ordered by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo Port Terminal Co., Ltd. or Narita International Airport Corporation, the company received a cease-and-desist order and a surcharge payment order from the Japan Fair Trade Commission on 28 March 2018.」
For NIPPO, following the previous case, another cease-and-desist order and surcharge payment order related to bidding occurred in March 2018. To prevent recurrence, the Company is reviewing its regulations and manuals and conducting monitoring through internal audits. - FY2017MaterialisedAnnual report
「On 6 September 2016, the company received a cease-and-desist order and a surcharge payment order from the Japan Fair Trade Commission. On 15 September of the same year, the company and related parties were found guilty by the Tokyo District Court.」
Regarding NIPPO's antitrust violation case, the matter progressed from indictment to a cease-and-desist order, surcharge payment order and guilty verdict, with continued guidance to prevent recurrence noted. - FY2016First statedAnnual report
「On 29 February 2016, the company was indicted by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office on suspicion of violating the Antimonopoly Act in connection with bidding for pavement disaster recovery work related to the Great East Japan Earthquake ordered by the Tohoku Regional Office of East Nippon Expressway Company Limited.」
NIPPO's indictment was described as an actual compliance incident, with further strengthening and reinforcement of compliance efforts emphasized.