User talk:JWSchneider

Denmark 2000 - Remedies, Divesiture

Does § 12(g) count as a divestiture?

12(g)(1) - Where a merger has already been implemented, the Competition Council may ... require the undertakings or assets brought together to be separated or the cessation of joint control or any other action that may be appropriate in order to restore conditions of effective competition.

--JWSchneider 14:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. "undertakings or assets brought together to be separated" seems like a "division" of the company so as to fall w/in our definition of divestiture.

--Kajrozga 16:16, 25 June 2007 (EDT)----

Finland 1998 - RTP Efficiency

Does 6(1)(2) has efficiency/public policy defense built-in?

6(1)(2) - [A firm cannot do the following by agreement with other firms] ... limit production or divide the market or sources of supply unless this is essential for an arrangement which will boost production or distribution or promote technical or economic development and as a result of which the benefit will primarily accrue to customers or consumers.

--JWSchneider 14:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I definitely see an efficiency defense but I'd ask Hylton about public policy. I thought we were looking for a smoking barrel in regards to public policy defense. On a side note, I also see market division and output restraint in there. Also, is "supply refusal" inherent in "dividing the market of supply"? --Kajrozga 16:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: This is efficency. --JWSchneider 10:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Finland 1998 - Remedies (Divestiture)

Can the Competition Authority divest as a remedy?

From commentary on Finnish competition law (pp. 379-80 of Competition Law in the EU): [Competition authority] can order a concentration to be canceled or impose conditions thereon, if the concentration has been implemented against the provisions of the Competition Act. ...

--JWSchneider 14:42, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

"impose conditions" is very vague. That could mean changing a minor condition in the merger agreement. I'd ask hylton whether we can stretch the meaning of that to mean divestiture. --Kajrozga 16:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: This is divestiture. --JWSchneider 10:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Barbados 2002 - 3rd Party Initiation

Does 36(1) really imply that 3rd parties can bring suits? It deals with appeals, not the original action.

36(1) - Where pursuant to section 30 of the Fair Trading Commission Act a notice has been served on a business enterprise, any person who is aggrieved by a finding of the Commission may, within 15 days after the date of receipt of the notice, appeal to a Judge in Chambers.

--JWSchneider 14:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I say NO. This doesn't seem like the person would be initiating the original cause of action. --Kajrozga 16:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: Looks more like 3rd party rights. NOT 3rd party initiation. --JWSchneider 10:16, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

France 1999 - Merger assessment – Public interest (Pro D)

Does this count as a public interest defense? This is the national champion stuff Hylton talked about.

Art. 41 - The Competition Council determines whether the proposed concentration or concentration makes a sufficient contribution to economic progress to compensate for the harm to competition. The Council takes into account the competitiveness of the enterprises in question with regard to international competition.

--JWSchneider 15:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Today, Hylton explicitly said "international competitiveness" falls under Public Interest. --Kajrozga 16:29, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

France 1999 - Merger assessment

I believe voluntary notification and post-merger notification should both be marked. See Art. 40

Art. 40 - Any proposed concentration or concentration that is not more than three months old can be notified to the Minister of the Economy by a concerned enterprise. The notification may contain commitments. Silence for two months constitutes tacit approval of the proposed concentration or concentration and of the annexed commitments. ...

--JWSchneider 15:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. It says "by a concerned enterprise," which probably means an enterprise not party to the deal but that is worried an antitrust violation has resulted from some merger in its industry. The next sentence makes sense if the first sentence is read in this light, because it states that once an enterprise fails to object to a merger, it's lost any future chance to do so. --Kajrozga 16:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)