|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == UK 1998 - Imprisonment == | | == Saudia Arabia 2004 - Tying or discriminatory pricing == |
|
| |
|
| ''I doubt we count this'' | | ''What do we think about this one?'' |
|
| |
|
| 43. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, '''having been required
| | imposing certain conditions on selling and purchasing transactions or on dealing with another firm, in a manner that puts it in a weak competitive position compared to other competing firms. |
| to produce a document under section 26, 27 or 28'''-
| |
| (a) he intentionally or recklessly destroys or otherwise
| |
| disposes of it, falsifies it or conceals it, or
| |
| (b) he causes or permits its destruction, disposal,
| |
| falsification or concealment.
| |
| (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable-
| |
| (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the
| |
| statutory maximum;
| |
| (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term
| |
| not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.
| |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:35, 18 July 2007 (EDT) | | --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 15:18, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Agreed, that doesn't count as imprisonment for our purposes. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 06:53, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == UK 1998 - Merger notification post-merger ==
| |
|
| |
|
| ''If we mark a country as having a voluntary merger regime, do they automatically get a 1 for post-merger?''
| | == Saudi Arabia 2004 - Eliminating Competitors == |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
| | ''Count it?'' |
|
| |
|
| I don't think so. Post-merger implies that the post-merger notification is necessary, right? So if it's a voluntary merger regime, then even a post-merger notification may not be necessary. We should probably discuss this one with Hylton I guess. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 06:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| | Article 4(4) - Preventing any firm from exercising its right to enter or move out of the market at any time or hampering the same. |
|
| |
|
| == Ukraine 2001 - Merger assessment efficiency defense ==
| | --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 15:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
| | |
| ''I think this counts.''
| |
| | |
| 2. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine may authorise concentration which was not permitted by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine because the concentration did not correspond with the conditions provided for by Part 1 of the present Article if a positive effect produced by the concentration on the public interests outweighs negative consequences of the restriction of competition.
| |
| | |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 18:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT) | |
| | |
| Agreed, that's an efficiency defense. However, keep in mind that, "the Ukraine is weak!" --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 06:58, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Uruguay - Misc ==
| |
| | |
| ''No primary source could be found.''
| |
Saudia Arabia 2004 - Tying or discriminatory pricing
What do we think about this one?
imposing certain conditions on selling and purchasing transactions or on dealing with another firm, in a manner that puts it in a weak competitive position compared to other competing firms.
--JWSchneider 15:18, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Saudi Arabia 2004 - Eliminating Competitors
Count it?
Article 4(4) - Preventing any firm from exercising its right to enter or move out of the market at any time or hampering the same.
--JWSchneider 15:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)