Assessment of the economic and valuation evidence
Assessment of the economic and valuation evidence
Liam Colley is a partner at the economic consultancy firm Cornerstone Research, and has over 25 years’ experience as an expert in competition disputes. He was cross-examined over two days, showing impressive understanding and depth of knowledge of the economic issues in the case. For the reasons set out below, I have largely accepted his market definition and dominance analysis. On the quantification of Cabo’s counterfactual profits, however, Mr Colley provided models that were unrealistically slanted towards a picture of huge sales in the counterfactual scenario, without addressing the question of Cabo’s profitability if Worldeez had enjoyed more modest levels of success. That was neither objective nor balanced, and left the court without any useful basis for the assessment of quantum if the very high levels of success assumed in his models were rejected.
David Parker is a director of the economic consultancy firm BRG, with over 20 years’ experience as an expert in competition disputes. He was cross-examined for almost two days. Again, unfortunately, while Mr Parker was clearly very knowledgeable in his area of expertise, I consider that some parts of his evidence crossed into advocacy for MGA and lacked the objectivity which I would expect from an expert witness. That was the case, in particular, for his evidence on market definition and the dominance assessment, in relation to which he had focused on a statistical analysis, with little or no regard to the qualitative evidence and the evidence of MGA’s market conduct. Mr Parker’s quantum analysis was ostensibly more balanced, by considering a range of comparators, but Mr Parker noticeably placed greatest reliance on a model of “moderate success” which was unreasonably unfavourable to Cabo. In addition, significant costs assumptions in Mr Parker’s model were wholly unrealistic and indicated a lack of objectivity. These problems led to substantial amendments being made to Mr Parker’s model by MGA in its closing submissions.
Gary Davies is a senior managing director of the management consultancy firm Ankura, with over 25 years’ experience of advising and providing expert evidence on valuation issues. He was cross-examined for around an hour, and it was common ground that he was a fundamentally honest and helpful witness. There was ultimately very little dispute between him and Mr Colley on the valuation issues, and in the light of the conclusions I have reached the relatively minor residual areas of difference between them do not arise for determination.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE EVIDENCE OF FACT
- MGA’s witnesses of fact
- Mr Larian’s breaches of purdah
- THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
- The economic and valuation experts: preliminary comments
- Assessment of the economic and valuation evidence
- The Decision Tree Model (DTM)
- ISSUES
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- The UK toy industry
- Table 1: NPD dolls classifications
- MGA and LOL Surprise
- Section 14
- The founding of Cabo and development of Worldeez
- Section 16
- The initial marketing of Worldeez
- Discussions with the launch retailers
- The Entertainer
- Toys R Us
- Smyths
- Other retailers
- MGA’s intervention
- Contacts with Cabo and Singleton
- The Entertainer
- Toys R Us
- Smyths
- B&M and other retailers
- AB Gee
- Worldeez repackaging and relaunch
- Launch of Worldeez globe in B&M
- Decline in B&M sales after August 2017
- Sales to other retailers
- Licensing and international distribution
- Nickelodeon advertising
- Demise of Cabo
- PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
- ABUSE OF DOMINANCE CLAIM
- The relevant market definition
- The parties’ submissions
- Mr Colley’s approach
- Mr Parker’s approach
- Section 44
- Conclusions on market definition
- Whether MGA was dominant on the relevant market
- The parties’ submissions
- Table 2: 2017 market shares for Colley and Parker markets (%)
- Table 3: Parker market share estimates for 2018–19 (%)
- Table 4: 2017 market shares for extended Colley market (%)
- Market shares
- Figure 1: Colley diagram of 2017 MGA and competitor market shares
- Competition from products outside the relevant market
- Barriers to entry and expansion
- Countervailing buyer power
- MGA’s conduct
- Conclusions on dominance
- Whether MGA’s conduct amounted to an abuse
- The parties’ submissions
- The overall exclusionary campaign
- MGA’s “response to commercial attack” argument
- MGA’s passing off defence
- Section 63
- Conclusion on abuse of dominance
- UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS CLAIM
- Agreements with the toy traders
- Discussion and conclusions
- Anticompetitive object or effect
- Discussion and conclusions
- Exemption under the VBER
- Scope of the VBER
- Market share threshold
- Excluded restrictions
- Conclusion on the VBER
- Exemption under s. 9 / Article 101(3)
- Conclusion on the unlawful agreements claim
- PATENT THREATS CLAIM
- Threats of patent infringement proceedings
- The parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- “Person aggrieved”
- Conclusion on the patent threats claim
- CAUSATION AND QUANTUM
- Legal principles
- Quantification of the loss
- The approach to claims for lost profits
- Conclusions on the overarching approach
- Causative effect of MGA’s conduct
- Actionable damage and causation: Cabo’s heads of loss
- Whether Cabo would have traded profitably in the counterfactual case
- Product quality
- Section 92
- Marketing campaign
- Retailer support
- Business plan/financial projections
- Inventory management
- Working capital
- Toy expert evidence on commercial success
- Breakeven analysis
- Table 5: Volumes and working capital required to break even in 2017
- International sales
- Conclusions on whether Cabo would have traded profitably
- The parties’ quantum models
- Mr Colley’s quantum models
- Table 6: Cabo calculations of losses (£m)
- Assessment of Mr Colley’s models
- Mr Parker’s quantum models
- Table 7: MGA calculations of losses (£)
- Assessment of Mr Parker’s significant success model
- Table 8: Loss calculation for significant success model, comparing MGA and Cabo cost stacks (£)
- Assessment of Mr Parker’s moderate success model
- Figure 2: Parker moderate success model: average monthly revenue (£)
- Conclusions on the quantum models
- DECLARATORY RELIEF
- Conclusions
![HP-2020-000016 - [2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)