User talk:AchalOza: Difference between revisions

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
No edit summary
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
Egypt 2005 - Defenses
 
(109 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Hungary 2005 Dom. Efficiency Defense ==
== Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry ==


Does this sound like an efficiency defense to you guys?
''Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator).  Does this sound like obstacles to entry language? Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.''


21(h) - "[It shall be prohibited to abuse a dominant position, particularly:] to set extremely low prices '''which are not based on greater efficiency''' in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry;"
Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which '''gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition''', by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 12:04, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


== Algeria 2000 Tying ==


Talked to Hylton, he said this is predatory pricing.  Moreover, we should keep a running list of statutes that prohibit predatory pricing. If there are enough, then we should create a new entry for that in the dataset.  For now, we should code it as discriminatory pricing (IS THAT RIGHT?).
''One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds.  Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP? Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act? The text below was translated with Google.''


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;


== Israel 1988 Remedies Available to 3rd Parties ==
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


''Looks like this article implies 3rd parties may recover monetary damages:''
== Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering ==


Article 46I(a) - "In the case that a ruling of pecuniary compensation is handed down by a Court in a Class Action, such Court may (1) Instruct whether such compensation is to be paid immediately or within a period determined by the Court"
Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


== South Korea 2004 Divestures ==
== Egypt 2005 - Defenses ==


''This sounds like divesture language:''
'''Article 9'''


Art. 21 - "Where an enterpriser commits any activity violating the provisions of Article 19, Paragraph 1, the Fair Trade '''Commission may order enterpriser to discontinue the act, publicly announce the fact of receiving corrective order, or take other corrective measures'''."
The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 07:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.


== Ireland 2002 Pre or Post Merger Notification ==
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 
''Does this sound like a pre or post merger notification?  It requires notice only of the proposal, so I think it's pre.''
 
Art. 18 - "each of the undertakings involved in the merger or acquisition '''shall notify the Authority in writing of the proposal to put the merger or acquisition into effect''', and provide full details thereof, within 1 month after the conclusion of the agreement or the making of the public bid."
 
Moreover, Art. 22(3) states that "[o]n completion of a full investigation in relation to the merger
or acquisition concerned, the Authority shall make whichever of the following determinations it considers appropriate, namely that the merger or acquisition— (a) may be put into effect; (b) may not be put into effect; or (c) may be put into effect subject to conditions specified by it
being complied with."
 
I think from this, pre-merger notification can be inferred.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 12:27, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Ireland 2002 Divestures ==
 
''This statutes allows the authority to condition a merger on compliance with certain steps.  [[Kenya]]'s statute is almost identical and Hylton said to code that as divesture.''
 
Art. 22(3)(c) states that a merger "may be put into effect subject to conditions specified by it
being complied with."
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 12:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Latvia 2004 Divestures ==
 
''Sounds like divesture language, allows the council to modify a merger agreement.''
 
16(3) - "The Competition Council may permit such merger, at the same time '''determining provisions, which prevents negative consequences of the merger''' and which are binding upon the respective market participants."
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Lao PDR 2004 Extraterritoriality ==
 
''I don't think this statute implies extraterritoriality, however it's currently coded as so:''
 
Article 4 Scope of application - This Decree applies to the sale of goods and services in business activities.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Lao PDR 2004 Divestitures ==
 
''This looks like divestiture language to me:
''
 
Article 14 - Measures against business entities who commit offences
 
A business entity that commits offences under this Decree shall be dealt with as follows;
 
- Notice to change and rectify its behavior;
 
- Temporary suspension of activity until the behavior is rectified and changed;
 
- Close down indefinitely the activity and may be punished according to the law;
 
- Compensate a business entity that has incurred losses as a result of the offences.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:33, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Lao PDR 2004 3rd Party Initiation ==
 
''Does this count as 3rd Party Initiation?''
 
Art. 14 - "[The Commission will] consider complaints from business persons and consumers;"
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:57, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 04:58, 8 October 2007

Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry

Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator). Does this sound like obstacles to entry language? Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.

Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition, by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;

--AchalOza 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Algeria 2000 Tying

One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds. Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP? Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act? The text below was translated with Google.

Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;

--AchalOza 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering

Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."

--AchalOza 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Defenses

Article 9

The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.

The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.

--AchalOza 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=User_talk:AchalOza&oldid=1780"