User talk:AchalOza

Thailand 1999 Divestitures

Is this divestiture language?

Section 8 - "The Commission shall have the powers and duties as . . . (2) to issue Notifications prescribing market share and sales volume off any business by reference to which a business operator is deemed to have market domination[.]"

--AchalOza 15:01, 18 July 2007 (MDT)

Hylton: not divestiture. --AchalOza 14:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thailand 1999 3rd Party Remedies

The "claiming compensation" language seems to imply that the 3rd party may initiate an action to get money.

Section 40 - "The person suffering an injury in consequence of the violation of section 25, section 26, section 27, section 28 or section 29 may initiate an action for claiming compensation from the violator."

--AchalOza 15:09, 18 July 2007 (MDT)

Thailand 1999 Dominance Obstacles to Entry

Would this count as a prohibition against setting obstacles to entry?

Section 25(4) - "[A dominant firm may not act by] intervening in the operation of business of other persons without justifiable reasons."

--AchalOza 17:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Venezuela 1992 3rd Party Initiation

The first part of Art. 32 seems to allow 3rd party initiation, however the second part seems to not allow it. What do you think? Perhaps the 3rd party can only "report" a violation?

Article 32

"Proceedings shall be initiated at the request of a concerned party or at the initiative of the Office.

"The initiation of proceedings may be ordered only by the Superintendent.

"Whenever it appears that the rules provided for in this Law may have been violated, the Superintendent will order the opening qf the corresponding proceeding, and shall initiate through the Tribunal the investigation of the case when appropriate."

--AchalOza 13:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: yes, code this as 3rd party initiation. It is close enough, it basically allows a 3rd party to initiate and the Superintendent oversees the process to make sure it's valid. --AchalOza 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Venezuela 1992 Divestiture

Does this imply divestiture?

Article 35: During the hearing of the case file, and before its decision is handed down, the office Superintendent may adopt the following preventive measures:

1º It may order the alleged prohibited practice to cease; and

2º Dictate measures to avoid damages that may result from the alleged prohibited practice.

--AchalOza 13:27, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: no, that's not enough for divestiture. --AchalOza 20:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Vietnam 2005 Tying

Does a prohibition against agreements imposing trading conditions on other parties count as a prohibition against tying?

--AchalOza 14:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: no, this is a prohibition against resale price maintenance. --AchalOza 20:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Vietnam 2005 Dom. Efficiency Defense

Would this imply any sort of efficiency defense?

"Several of these practices [by dominant firms] are not prohibited per se but are prohibited if they actually cause loss to consumers or have the intention of harming competition. However, no criteria or guidelines for assessing such effect or intentions are set out."

--AchalOza 15:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: no, this is not a defense. For the purposes of this study, we are not differentiating between per se and rule of reasons tests. --AchalOza 13:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Yugoslavia 1996 Divestitures

Divestitures?

Article 6(1) - "When the Anti-Monopoly Commission finds that an economic agent has misused its monopolistic or dominant position on the market or concluded a monopolistic accord, it shall render a decision ordering the economic agent concerned to take appropriate steps towards eliminating the established irregularities or deficiencies."

--AchalOza 16:49, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Based on Hylton's comments re: Venezuela, this is not sufficient for divestiture. --AchalOza 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Mali 1992 Predatory Pricing

Looks like predatory pricing:

Article 17 - "[The following is a prohibited act:] the sale at a loss. [It is] regarded as sale at a loss, any resale in the state of goods or products at a price lower than its effective purchase price."

--AchalOza 06:50, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Mali 1992 Predatory Pricing Defense

The statute seems to allow a type of efficiency defense for predatory pricing, however they do not have a broader dominance efficiency defense. How should I code this, I'm leaning towards as a comment to price setting.

Article 17 - "[The following] are not aimed by this measurement [prohibiting predatory pricing]: (1) resale of non durable products since they are threatened of fast detoriation; (2) voluntary or forced resale, moved by the suspension or the change of a commercial activity."

--AchalOza 06:53, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: do not include this as an efficiency defense, instead just mention it as a comment in price setting. --AchalOza 13:41, 23 July 2007 (EDT)