User talk:Kajrozga

Test (Date) Section

Question

Text

--Kajrozga 11:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Cyprus (1999)

1.)

42.-(1) Where the Commission exercises the powers granted under section 41 and subject to the provisions of section 47, it may, following a study of the relevant reports of the Service, order the dissolution or partial dissolution of a concentration, in order to secure the restoration of the competitive market.

Divestiture = 1 ???

Agreed, this is divestiture. --JWSchneider 15:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: Agreed.

2.)

4.—(1) Any enterprise agreement having as its object or effect the elimination, restriction or distortion of competition, in particular an agreement which— . . .

RTP: Eliminating Competitors = 1 ???

--Kajrozga 11:46, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. This is eliminating competitors. --JWSchneider 15:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: Agreed.

Czech Republic (2004)

1.)

Article 18

Suspension of implementation of concentrations

(2) Where the Office finds that the undertakings have implemented the concentration without notification of the concentration, it may impose on the undertakings a duty to sell the interests, transfer the enterprise acquired by the concentration or a part thereof, terminate an agreement or take any other measures that may be necessary for restoring effective competition in the relevant market.

Divestiture = 1????

--Kajrozga 11:57, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds a whole lot like divestiture, and certainly keeps it general enough that the admin bodies might impose it. This is a question for Hylton, I think.

--JWSchneider 15:14, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: Agreed.

Cote d'Ivoire (1991)

From a secondary source: SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICES, ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOUR SUBJECT TO REVIEW

Ivorian legislation distinguishes between practices which result from individual behaviour (restrictive practices) and those which arise from concerted actions (anti-competitive practices).

1. CONCERTED OR ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES There is a blanket ban on these practices, but exemption may be granted under article 10 in the case of those which arise from the application of a law or regulation or which would generate economic progress for the community as a whole

---Question 1: Seems like this Article 10 efficiency defense only applies to RTPs. Is that how you guys would read it?---

Since this is a secondary source, I'd just interpret it as narrowly as possible. --JWSchneider 15:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

1.1. Agreements (article 7 L) Article 7 defines agreements as accords, concerted practices and decisions to associate or collective recommendations emanating from natural or legal persons, public or private.

This article prohibits any concerted action, agreement, alliance or arrangement, express or tacit, which has the purpose of or may have the effect of hampering or limiting free competition, in particular when the action tends to: . . .

---Question 2: RTP: Eliminating Competitors = 1  ????---

--Kajrozga 13:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Def a question for Hylton. Funny how they say "we define agreements as accords." Kind of redundant. --JWSchneider 15:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: AGREED.

Chile (1973)

Found the primary source on Chile, this is gonna be a bloodbath...

1.)

"Anyone executing or going into individually or collectively any fact, act or convention tending to impede free-competition within the country in economic activities, both in that of internal character and concerning external trade activities, shall be punished with petty imprisonment in any of its degrees."

Question: Extraterritoriality?

I don't think that counts as extraterritoriality, as it requires actions within the state. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Question: Too broad to tabulate "Restriction of Competition" under Mergers?

I think this article's point is to define scope and doesn't specifically talk to merger assessment. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

2.)

"To the effects provided in the foregoing article, it will be considered among others, as facts, acts or conventions tending to impede free-competition, the following:

"a. Those referred to production, such as quota distribution, reductions or stagnation of them;" b. Those referred to commerce or distribution, whether wholesaler or retailer, such as quota distribution . . . "

Question: Market Division = 1 ?

Hmmm, I'm not sure what quota distribution counts as. Probably should ask Hylton. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

"f. Generally, any other measure tending to eliminate, restrict or hindering free-competition."

Question: Eliminating Competitors = 1 ?

Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

"[Empowers a commission to:] 2. To order the modification or dissolution of the companies, corporations and other juridical persons of private law, that have been a party in such acts, contracts, covenants, systems or agreements referred to in the foregoing number; 4. To impose fines for the benefit of the Government up to an amount equivalent to ten thousand tributary units. The fines shall be judiciously regulated according to the working capital or"

Question: Divestiture = 1 ?

Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

[Speaking about monopolies:] "Notwithstanding, the execution or the maintenance of those acts or contracts referred to in the foregoing articles could be authorized, provided that the national interest may require it and that they are necessary for the stability or development of national investments"

Question: Efficiency Defense = 1 ?

Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

"The Preventative Commissions and the Prosecutor's Office to which the foregoing articles referred to, shall receive and investigate, as the case may be, all the accusations made by private individuals in relation to the acts or contracts that may imply an infringement to the rules of the present law."

Question: 3rd Party Initiation = 1 ?

Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

--Kajrozga 12:49, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Colombia (1992)

A Secondary source states of prohibitions concerning agreements:

"Practices whose purpose or effect is to establish conditions of sale or marketing which are discriminatory visàvis third parties;"

Question 1: What does that sound like? Discriminatory pricing? tying?

"Practices whose purpose or effect is the assignment, sharing limiting of sources of supply of production inputs;"

Question 2: Is this supply refusal?

"Practices whose purpose or effect is the assignment, sharing or limiting of sources of supply of production inputs;" Question 3: Market Division? Supply refusal?

Canada (2000)

Ladies the gentlemen, the antitrust super-statute:

"Any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of

a) conduct that is contrary to any provision of Part VI, or

b) the failure of any person to comply with an order of the Tribunal or another court under this Act,

may, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover from the person who engaged in the conduct or failed to comply with the order an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by him, "

Question 1: 3rd Party Initiation + Remedies available to 3rd party?

"Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person:

to prevent, limit or lessen, unduly, the manufacture or production of a product or to enhance unreasonably the price thereof,"

Question 2: RTPs - Price setting ?

"No person who is engaged in the business of producing or supplying a product, who extends credit by way of credit cards or is otherwise engaged in a business tha t relates to credit cards, or who has the exclusive rights and privileges conferred by a patent, trade-mark, copyright, registered industrial design or registered integrated circuit topography, shall, directly or indirectly,

a) by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, attempt to influence upward, or to discourage the reduction of, the price . . .

For the purposes of this section, a suggestion by a producer or supplier of a product of a resale price or minimum resale price . . . proof of an attempt to influence the person to whom the suggestion is made in accordance with the suggestion.?

Question 3: This sounds like resale price maintenance, but there's all that stuff about credit cards, etc. What do you gents think?

"(a) squeezing, by a vertically integrated supplier, of the margin available to an unintegrated customer who competes with the supplier, for the purpose of impeding or preventing the customer's entry into, or expansion in, a market;

(b) acquisition by a supplier of a customer who would otherwise be available to a competitor of the supplier, or acquisition by a customer of a supplier who would otherwise be available to a competitor of the customer, for the purpose of impeding or preventing the competitor's entry into, or eliminating the competitor from, a market;"

Question 4: Obstacles to entry?

"(e) pre-emption of scarce facilities or resources required by a competitor for the operation of a business, with the object of withholding the facilities or resources from a market"

Question 5: Limits Access?

"For the purpose of this section, the Tribunal shall not find that a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially solely on the basis of evidence of concentration or market share."

Question 6: This implies that it does consider "dominance" in the merger calculus. So should I code "dominance" as a "1"?

"In determining, for the purpose of section 92, whether or not a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially, the Tribunal may have regard to the following factors:

(a) the extent to which foreign products or foreign competitors provide or are likely to provide effective competition to the businesses of the parties to the merger or proposed merger;" (b) whether the business, or a part of the business, of a party to the merger or proposed merger has failed or is likely to fail;"

Question 7: part (a) is "international competitiveness", which should mean that "Public Interest - Pro Defendant" will be coded as a "1" under Mergers? Question 8: part (b) is "business failure," which means "Other" will be coded "1"