User talk:AchalOza

Albania 2003 Public Interest Pro-D

Does this sound like a public interest (or efficiency) defense to you?

2. Commission may not prohibit concentrations where one of the undertakings risks seriously a failure, there is no less anti­competitive alternative to the concentration, when:

a) this undertaking is in such a situation that without the concentration it would exit the market in the near future;

b) there is no serious prospects of re­organizing the activity of this undertaking.

--AchalOza 12:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd ask Hylton about this one. This is the case of when there are two firms, and one will perish if it isn't allowed to merge with the other. Not strictly an efficiency defense, because it won't advance technology, the market, etc.

Not public interest, either. Maybe it belongs under "Other."

--JWSchneider 17:42, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Discussed with Hylton and he said that this "Business Failure" defense should be included as a comment to "Restriction of Trade". Moreover, he suggested refining the definitions so Efficiency Defense is for benefiting economic cost and public interest is for things like international competitiveness, minority ownership, income distribution, unemployment, national security and the environment. We should keep an eye out for what else is included under "Other."

--AchalOza 13:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

However, the Albania statute does not include "Restriction of Trade" in their merger assessment. Is it still appropriate to include "Business Failure" as a comment there?

--AchalOza 13:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

El Salvador 1997

Note to self: find full Spanish texts and translate into English. Current dataset is built off of secondary sources.

--AchalOza 09:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hungary 2005 Dom. Efficiency Defense

Does this sound like an efficiency defense to you guys?

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;"

--AchalOza 12:04, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

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?).

--AchalOza 13:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)