The European Commission confirmed on 14 March 2007 that it had launched cartel action against a number of flat glass sector companies. The move follows a series of dawn raids carried out in February and March 2005 on companies in the UK, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The Commission also said it had received further information from the companies themselves, seeking fine reductions under the Commission“s leniency policy. The Commission“s statement of objections alleges that the companies fixed prices for the manufacture of flat glass for use in the building and automotive industries. A Commission spokesperson said that another investigation had arisen from the 2005 dawn raids specifically into glass used in vehicles and that this investigation was continuing. Pilkington of the UK, part of the Japanese Nippon Sheet Glass company, confirmed that it had received the statement of objections but made no further comment. Other companies thought to be involved are French firm Saint-Gobain and Glaverbel, the Belgium-based unit of Japan“s biggest glassmaker Asahi Glass. The flat glass industry is worth around EUR 14 billion a year. The case is the first to be looked at under the Commission“s new fining guidelines. Although these were published in September 2006, they only apply to statements of objections issued after this date, and this is the first such case. Recent cartel cases have seen a drastic increase in fines: in the first two and a half months of 2007 over EUR 1.7 billion in fines have been levied in just two cases. The new guidelines give greater powers, presaging even heavier fines. The fine will be based on up to 30% of the company“s yearly sales for the relevant sector multiplied by the number of years involvement in the cartel (the final amount must be within the overall ceiling of 10% of annual turnover set by Regulation 1/2003). Companies can be fined an additional 15%-25% of yearly sales (calculated in the same way as above) merely for having entered the cartel. The new guidelines allow for an increase of up to 100% for each previous infringement of anti-trust law (previously, it was 50%). This includes previous EU level decisions and any prior infringement established by a national competition authority. Pilkington has in the past been in trouble in the US over anti-competitive practices. It was the subject of an anti-trust case in 1994, where it was said to have operated a series of licensing agreements with its principal competitors which divided up countries and territories and effectively blocked rivals from competing on foreign markets. The case was a civil one and was settled by a consent decree. The companies now have two months in which to reply to the statement of objections and can also request an oral hearing.