The service is allowed to operate as a natural monopoly, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, because having more than one identification system would complicate the trading system. While accepting this fact, the EU’s investigation is looking into whether or not Standard & Poor’s is overcharging for the service.

A spokesperson for S&P told the Wall Street Journal that the company “strongly disagrees with the EC’s preliminary assessment and believes the Commission has grossly undervalued Standard & Poor’s effort, expertise and costs required to operate a global identification system that benefits millions of investors and market participants world-wide.”

“The Commission has reason to believe that there may have been a violation in this sector of rules on restrictive business practices (Article 81),” the EC said in a prepared statement.

Commentary: The Commission pointed out that raids and inspections are a “preliminary step” in larger cartel and anti-trust investigations. Still, one has to be suspicious because of the high-profile raids and large dollar amount fines levied against glass companies at the end of last year. Although the information on the special glass sector raids is just now becoming known, the Commission admitted it began investigating in March of 2009, fresh off the case of the earlier, 2008 glass cartel.

Michelin and Total quickly denied the charges, according to a report by the UK’s Independent Newspaper. A spokesman for Total was quoted as saying, “All we have in Liechtenstein is two filling stations.”

While news of this action was “leaked” just days before the G20’s London Summit, many diplomatic sources were quoted in the story as saying that the move was a political move to help restore domestic confidence in President Sarkozy.

WPP alleged that Benatti secretly took for his personal gain the majority of the proceeds from a £17 million takeover of an Italian advertising company. Benatti fired back, alleging that he was dismissed improperly. He claimed that he was let go because he “had fallen out” with the company’s COO in Italy, Daniela Weber, who was allegedly involved in a relationship with company chief executive, Sir Martin Sorrell (pictured). According to the story, after a five-day hearing, Benatti and WPP have reached a confidential settlement, thus ending the case.

Last year Sorrell also filed a libel suit against Benatti after Benatti allegedly distributed “a computer-generated image showing [Sorrell] with Ms Weber labeled ‘the mad dwarf and the nympho schizo.’” In that case, Benatti paid £120,000 to Sorrell, but didn’t admit liability.

The wax cartel has been operating since 1992, meeting in “top hotels” across Europe between then and 2005. Neelie Kroes, the EU Competition Commissioner, said, “There is probably not a household or company in Europe that has not bought products affected by this ‘paraffin mafia’ cartel, with all that implies in terms of paying over the odds, higher costs and economic damage.”

Of the nine companies involved in the fine, South Africa’s Sasol was burdened with the largest percentage, nearly 50 percent, because the EC deemed it the ringleader. The next largest fine, €128.1 million, was slapped on France’s Total. ExxonMobil landed third place with €83.6 million. The rest was divvied up between Spain’s Repsol; Italy’s Eni; Germany’s Tuda-petrol, Hansen & Rosenthal and RWE; and Hungary’s MOL.

Shell was given immunity because it blew the whistle on the group, avoiding a potential fine of €96 million.

Sasol said if it found grounds to appeal the fine, it would. Apparently the company feels it has enough information to do so, as CEO Pat Davies said, “As we see things now, we intend to appeal.” However, appealing may not be enough to rid the companies of any and all financial damage, as the EC encouraged individuals or companies who were victims of the cartel to seek damages as well.

The case began in 2004 focusing on alleged illegal payments made by Alstom, creator of the TGV train (pictured), from 1995 to 2003, but has since expanded to payments made up to 2008. The investigation has expanded to payments made in Italy, Brazil, Zambia and Mexico, according to the WSJ article.

Alstom’s Compliance Officer, reported to be Bruno A. Kaelin, was in charge of a Swiss Slush Fund that allegedly paid bribes on behalf of the company to earn lucrative contracts. One such alleged payment was a $6.8 million payout to earn a $45 million contract for a Sao Paolo subway.

It remains to be seen how much the company will ultimately be fined (millions of dollars have already been seized), but it’s likely that between the payouts the company made and the fines that it could receive, Alstom will end up dishing out far more money than it earned from making the alleged bribes in the first place.

The Financial Times points out that the drop in stature may not be as much to do with the UK as it is with China:

Gordon Edge, director of economics and markets at the British Wind Energy Association, said the report was unfair on the UK: “I think this report says more about China than it does about the UK.”

The improvement in China’s score is partly down (sic) to the country’s renewable energy policy, which aims to generate 15 per cent of energy from non-carbon sources by 2020. The government’s focus on infrastructure had made China especially attractive for investors, Mr Edge said.

The United States tops off the list, though its future remains uncertain due in part to the upcoming election, according to the report.

According to the website Deutsche Welle, Germany and the United States top TI’s list as leading the fight against corruption. One expert told the site that those two countries are “at the forefront in applying an OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] anti-corruption convention.”

The website also noted Germany’s pursuit of Siemens as proof of the country’s proactive anti-corruption habits. You can read more about the Siemens’ case here.

And, on the other end of the spectrum, the article reminds readers who may be surprised to see the UK on the bottom of the list that the BAE debacle is still raging on…

The insider trading allegations stemmed from the delay of the Airbus A380, a new jumbo jet. Back in 2005, several EADS executives sold massive amounts of stock just before the public announcement of the A380 delay, which caused Airbus stock to plummet.

Recently, two U.S. law firms have entered the fracas by filing suit against EADS. One case was filed by the law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego, and the other by the law firm Dreier of New Yorker, both on behalf of U.S. shareholders that own EADS shares on European Exchanges. The two suits are seeking class-action status.

Currently, French regulators are looking into the actions of the companies, which may pose a problem for the U.S. suits.

Bloomberg News reported the following:

“Even if U.S. rules allow them to ask for higher damages, I think we’re more likely to actually win them,” Frederik-Karel Canoy said today in a telephone interview. “Because of the on-going criminal investigation in France, the evidence will all be kept here. I don’t see how we can collaborate on it.”

The U.S. attorneys shot back:

Dreier lawyer Brian Kerr in a telephone interview today [said] that he and his clients “don’t see why we need to wait until the French judicial system comes to its conclusion to bring our claims.”

This June, Boeing will be showing off its new 787 Dreamliner plane. The Dreamliner will be 20 percent more fuel efficient than the majority of airplanes, and is designed in part to increase the number of direct flights between mid-sized cities. The idea here is that reduced layovers will mean fewer take-offs and landings, both of which use more fuel than when the plane is airborne. Airbus has its own plane in the works, though that isn’t expected to be on the market until 2013, a full five years after Boeing’s rival model flies.

And with the rising cost of oil, using less jet fuel saves these two companies some serious green. Now if only the auto companies would follow suit…

Beginning April 6th, employers must take reasonable steps to curb harassment if they are aware that at least two incidents had already occurred. As Stuart Chamberlain, an employment law expert, told the Guardian, “Shops or bars may be able to put up notices explaining that staff harassment is not tolerated. However, professional services companies who encourage staff to socialize with clients may find it difficult to convey that message.”

The article describes a related study:

A Canadian study of retail workers 10 years ago found that a majority had been sexually harassed by customers in their job but were reluctant to confront them or complain because the work environment emphasized customer satisfaction. They were likely instead to avoid male customers and be less friendly, which could affect their job performance.

The law came about after a ruling that the British government wasn’t doing enough to protect workers from “any unwanted conduct related to their sex which violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

With recent publicized stories of whistle-blowers making small fortunes for calling-out cartels, and after the success of German and British authorities paying informants for the names of people evading taxes through Liechtenstein bank accounts, the hope is that this new plan will encourage more employees to speak up about their companies’ illegal habits. According to the Independent:

Simon Williams, the OFT’s senior director of cartels and criminal enforcement, said: “We believe that it is in the public interest to offer financial incentives in the hope that it will encourage more people who have good information about the existence of hard-core cartel activity to come forward.”

Obviously, the information has to be good – whistleblowers will only get paid after a successful prosecution. The OFT has established a hotline (0800 085 1664) as well as an email address (cartelshotline@oft.gsi.gov.uk) that aspiring whistle-blowers can use to report bad behavior.

Because of Flowserve’s “thorough review of the improper payments and the company’s implementation of enhanced compliance policies and procedures” the DOJ will delay prosecuting the company for three years, according to a DOJ press release. If Flowserve and its subsidiaries play nice during that time, the DOJ “will dismiss the Criminal Information.”

The penalty wasn’t a surprise for the company (it had predicted a fine of $11 million in its 2007 third quarter report with the SEC), and stock value hasn’t responded to the report. In fact, the day of the announcement, Flowserve shares closed 12 cents higher than it opened.

The raids came after German authorities came into possession of a data DVD containing information on wealthy German citizens who transferred large amounts of money to Liechtenstein banks (Liechtenstein often frustrates Western nations due to the lack of transparency in its banking system). German citizens have been using it for years to shelter their wealth and avoid paying large taxes, though unfortunately for them, “everybody’s doing it” isn’t a proper legal defense. German prosecutors promise that charges will be brought against offenders, and say it’s only a matter of time until enough evidence is collected to file suit.

So far the only individual named as a suspect in the case is Klaus Zumwinkel (pictured), the former Chief Executive of Deutsche Post, the German mail company. Although he was a respected businessman in his country, these allegations forced him to resign last Friday.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to put pressure on Liechtenstein Prime Minister Otmar Hasler (who also doubles as his country’s finance minister) to increase transparency between Liechtenstein banks and the rest of Europe. Though Liechtenstein lies in the heart of the European Continent, it is not a member of the EU and therefore does not have to abide by the financial laws of the bloc.

For those unfamiliar with mulesing, it’s named after John Mules – the first to “accidentally” develop the practice – and involves cutting off pieces of wrinkle skin from around the rear of a sheep to prevent flystrike. Flystrike leads to infection and eventually death, however mulesing is extremely painful and often done with little or no painkillers for the sheep. Enter PETA.

PETA heavily fought the practice, commonplace in Australia, and reached a tentative cease-fire with the nation’s wool industry (AWI) last summer (the Australian Wool Industry agreed to stop mulesing, and PETA had to agree to “conduct itself within the law”). It appears that the AWI is now reneging on its promise, and PETA is again up in arms.

Many retailers have already stopped importing wool from Australia because of the practice. Sweden-based H&M is the latest of them, saying, “H&M does not accept mulesing. The company has decided to direct its buying towards other countries of origin and other suppliers in Australia that can guarantee mulesing-free merino wool.”

The BBC reports that the OFT originally cited Morrison as one of the alleged members of the cartel, but later clarified its press release:

In September 2007, the OFT said it had provisionally found evidence against a number of supermarkets and dairy processors.

It alleged they had colluded to fix the price of some dairy products by sharing commercially sensitive information in 2002 and in some cases, 2003.

The OFT clarified its position concerning Morrisons in December last year.

It said its provisional findings related to allegations Morrisons colluded in respect of certain liquid milk products in 2002 only and that it regretted “any confusion which may have arisen”.

Through their claim, Morrison’s accuses the OFT of libel with “direct, intended and foreseeable consequence of the publication [of the press release].” No doubt all other supermarkets involved in the allegations will be watching the outcome of Morrison’s case with a lot of interest. If the company is successful, many similar lawsuits should be expected.

The company has also added a ‘CO2 Calculator‘ on its website to help customers analyze their own CO2 use. According to the site:

This calculator provides accurate figures based on verifiable data and the results are based on the actual operating data recorded on each flight:

* The type of aircraft operating the route (or frequency);
* The actual fuel consumed on the route concerned;
* The number of passengers carried;
* The weight of baggage and goods carried on board.

Green biz has a link to the actual calculator in their own report of the announcement.

Chevron will pay the money over three years to Global Fund-supported programs in countries where the company operates. A press release from the Fund says that because Chevron is a corporate champion, the company is now “required to demonstrate a long-term commitment to fighting these global health issues,” referring to AIDS, TB and malaria.

The timing of the announcement is no-doubt intended to coincide with the looming World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland. David J. O’Reilly, CEO of Chevron, is confirmed to be attending the conference, and will now have more to brag about at the high-powered lunch meetings the conference is notorious for (Forbes magazine goes so far as to label it a “who’s who gabfest” event).

Anyway, good on you, Chevron. It will be interesting to see if the Global Fund, which already has pledges currently at $18 billion, can attract any more large corporations to donate their money.

Siemens has been accused of bribing officials and executives across the planet, in countries from Italy to Nigeria to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Employees not in the upper echelons of management were given immunity from prosecution in exchange for speaking out, but many experts don’t think that will improve the enormous morale problems that the company now faces. One German banker, quoted in the UK’s Financial Times and familiar with Siemens, has gone so far as to suggest the company may “implode” from the management loss that will occur pending results of the investigation.

The decision to push forward the deadline came about after intense negotiations between the country’s center-left government and other leading political parties. In order to pay for the new, faster schedule, fuel tax will be raised by 10-øre (2 cents) per liter of diesel and by 5-øre per liter of petrol.

The European Commission said that the raids were the tip of the iceberg as far as the investigation is concerned, and they’re still gathering data on the issue. The raids were not an accusation of guilt on the part of the companies.

In explaining the new precedent of unannounced visits, the ever aggressive Neelie Kroes said:

“If we have the feeling that something is rotten in the state, then let’s take the opportunity to find out.”

According to the FT story, the generic drug companies have been raising their eyebrows for some time, accusing big pharmaceuticals of using shifty means to delay them from producing cheaper, identical drugs.

According to the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, “The contents of [Evans'] letter highlight the following: the Director-General’s concerns about the possible damage to UK business resulting from electronic attack sponsored by Chinese state organisations, and the fact that the attacks are designed to defeat best-practice IT security systems.”

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has allegedly been supporting computer hackers for some time now, and it’s thought that they have already used limited cyber-warfare as a response to recent public U.S. missteps – such as the bombing of the Beijing Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and after a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter in 2001.

Although Beijing denies any connection to the recent attacks, China is undeniably building up what Time Magazine appropriately labels a “cybermilitia” (see the linked story above). One example is a recent cash contest sponsored by the PLA to recruit the most talented local hackers across the country.

The letter from Evans shows the growing concern that western nations have over electronic security threats but, according to Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, it is “unusual for a country to so openly accuse another of engaging in this activity – especially when it can be extraordinarily difficult to prove an attack is being sponsored by a government or is a lone hacker acting independently.”

This verdict is something of a let down to those who really wanted to see Black suffer, as his prison sentence is less than a quarter of the over 30 year sentence that prosecution was seeking. However, if Black reports to jail by March 3 as ordered, he will be pushing 70 when he’s released.

So what should Black be doing to prepare for his six year sentence (assuming an appeal doesn’t go through)? David Novak, a former white-collar criminal who now is a consultant to corporate inmates, advises clients to “prepare for prison life by taping off a small area in their living room and restricting themselves to that.”

Three of Black’s co-defendants were given slightly easier punishments. Peter Atkinson, a former Hollinger lawyer, was given two years in prison followed by three years of supervised parole. John Boultbee, Hollinger’s ex CFO, was given just over two years in prison, three years of probation and over $150,000 in fines. Mark Kipnis, Hollinger’s former general counsel, has yet to be sentenced.

Originally, Stolt-Nielsen was given amnesty from prosecution for spilling the beans on a price fixing scheme between the three tanker companies and fully cooperating in the Department of Justice’s investigation. Later, “based on evidence from one of the others accused,” the DOJ revoked the amnesty and brought charges against the company. Stolt-Nielsen moved for dismissal, and Judge Bruce W. Kauffman from Pennsylvania agreed, saying:

“The [DOJ's antitrust] division has no reasonable basis upon which to void or revoke the agreement because it has not demonstrated any breach by Stolt-Nielsen or the individual defendants…Accordingly, the indictment will be dismissed.”

Mr. Stolt-Nielsen, obviously relieved, said in a statement, “We are pleased that justice has been served.” Now Stolt-Nielsen is not only the first company to have amnesty revoked by the DOJ, but it’s the first to have it reinstated as well.

As for the Department of Justice, they are fairly unhappy about the decision and plan to review their options. Whether or not they appeal this decision, their intent on hunting down and prosecuting cartels has been duly noted.

Many experts argued that the European Court of First Instance’s ruling against Microsoft this year would embolden the European Commission (and Neelie Kroes) to become much more aggressive in big-business litigation and, for the moment, it would seem they are right. For example, the EU gave Google “one of very few major business challenges” in the company’s history when competition authorities at the European Commission didn’t approve Google’s acquisition of online advertising company DoubleClick.

There is a method to her madness, however, as Kroes and the Commission’s actions are successfully putting the European Union’s antitrust authority into international celebrity as other countries around the world (such as South Korea) begin to model their own systems off the European style – and as their U.S. counterpart loses its influence.