Table 7: MGA calculations of losses (£)
Table 7: MGA calculations of losses (£)
January 2018 UK only | UK – 3 years | International – last 2 years | Total | |
Significant success | -83,451 | -243,168 | 1,210,066 | 966,899 |
Significant success/all Mash’ems & Fash’ems | 15,700 | 629,072 | 3,280,646 | 3,909,718 |
Moderate success | -166,652 | -550,399 | -12,272 | -562,671 |
Moderate success/2x average comparator sales | -98,874 | -329,676 | 121,174 | -208,520 |
Mr Parker’s models assumed an average wholesale price for the globe of £1.33 in 2017 and £1.37 in 2018 onwards, based on a weighted average of the prices paid by the retailers that did stock Worldeez. The figures set out in the table above are based on that price assumption.
In its closing submissions, however, MGA contended for the first time (contrary to Mr Parker’s position) that the correct average wholesale price to assume in the quantum analysis was in fact not Mr Parker’s figures of £1.33 and £1.37, but was the price paid by The Entertainer of £1.20. Further profitability calculations were therefore provided by MGA using that price base, and the final version of the DTM included this as an option. Those price assumptions inevitably led to far lower profitability figures (or even greater loss figures) than the figures based on MGA’s cost stack set out in the table above.
As Cabo pointed out, this was a new argument which it had not been able to explore with Mr Parker and other witnesses. Nor was it supported by the evidence in any event (particularly given that Cabo’s main retail outlet B&M had in fact agreed a higher wholesale price of £1.50). As set out at §554 above, a reasonable average wholesale price to assume for the counterfactual scenario would be around £1.35. Mr Parker’s weighted average figures are very close to that, and it is not necessary to comment further on MGA’s alternative profit figures using a wholesale price of £1.20.
- 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)