Three hotel operators fined for exchange of sensitive information

CCCS has fined three hotel-operators USD 1.1 million for exchanging sensitive price information.

The CCCS penalised the owners/operators of three hotels for exchange of commercially sensitive information. The CCCS found that the hotel's respective sales representatives discussed inter alia corporate room rates for specific customers and proposed price increases. This information exchange influenced the hotels' subsequent pricing strategies and placed them in an advantageous position over their corporate customers in contract negotiations. The CCCS imposed a total fine of approximately SGD 1.5 million (USD 1.1 million) on the owners/operators of the three hotels.

Click here for further details.

CCCS accepts additional voluntary commitments from lift spare parts suppliers

CCCS has concluded its investigations into alleged refusal to supply practices of four lift spare parts suppliers after accepting additional voluntary commitments from the enterprises.

The CCCS investigated the refusals to supply of lift spare parts for the maintenance of lifts in the residential estates constructed by Singapore government. The CCCS considered that if a lift supplier refused to supply certain branded 'essential' lift spare parts to third parties, independent service providers might be prevented from competing for maintenance contracts.

The CCCS concluded the investigation after accepting the voluntary commitments of four lift suppliers to essentially, supply their respective brands of lift spare parts to third-party contractors on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

Click here and here for further details.

Merger of clinical laboratory service companies conditionally approved

The CCCS has conditionally approved the acquisition of two private clinical laboratories, Innovative and Quest, by Pathology Asia Holdings Pte. Ltd.

Innovative and Quest were the closest competitors in in-vitro diagnostic ("IVD") tests. The concerns were whether alternative providers (e.g., private clinical laboratories) could exert constraints on the merged entity especially for customers, e.g., private hospitals with no in-house laboratories.

The commitments are inter alia: (i) supplying IVD testing to competing laboratories so they can compete for customers; (ii) not locking in customers on an exclusive basis; and (iii) maintaining the prices to private hospitals with no in-house laboratories.

Click here for further details.