User talk:AchalOza

Turkey 2005 Pre-Merger Notification

Based on the tense of the language used, it appears to require a pre-merger notification. Moreover, the statute which this one replaced explicitly called for post-merger notification.

Article 10 - "As of the date the Board is notified of merger or acquisition agreements falling under article 7, the Board is, as a result of the preliminary examination to be performed by it within fifteen days, obliged to permit the merger or acquisition transaction, or if it decides to deal with this transaction under final examination, it is obliged to duly notify, with its preliminary objection letter, those concerned of the fact that the merger or acquisition transaction is suspended and cannot be put into practice until the final decision, together with other measures deemed necessary by it. In this case, the provisions of articles 40-59 of this Act shall be applicable.

"Where the Board does not respond to or take any action for the application as to a merger or acquisition within due time, merger or acquisition agreements shall take effect and become legally valid after 30 days as of the date of the notification."

--AchalOza 14:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Agree. From this I think it's reasonable to infer that the notification and assessment occur BEFORE the merger. --JWSchneider 16:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Tanzania 2003 3rd Party Initiation

Article 69(I)

The Commission may initiate a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice.

(2) Any person may -

(a) submit information concerning an alleged prohibited practice to the Commission, in any manner or form; or

(b) submit a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice to the Commission in the prescribed form.

--AchalOza 16:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I think this counts. Kaj might have told me that this sort of thing (3rd party initiation, but then the competition authority takes over) didn't count. Let's ask Hylton. --JWSchneider 16:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: submitting a complaint is sufficient for 3rd party initiation. However, we do not count "tip lines" or simply reporting an abuse. --AchalOza 11:27, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Efficiency Defense

Efficiency defense?

Article 13(I)(b)

(i) by contributing to greater efficiency in production or distribution;

(ii) by promoting technical or economic progress;

(iii) by contributing to greater efficiency in the allocation of resources; or

--AchalOza 16:53, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: yes, this is an efficiency defense. --AchalOza 14:00, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Public Interest Defense

Public interest defense?

Article 13(I)(b)

(iv) by protecting the environment and the merger:

(vi) the benefits to the public resulting from the merger outweigh the detriments caused by preventing, restraining or distorting competition;

--AchalOza 16:53, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Hylton: yes, protecting the environment is a public interest defense. --AchalOza 11:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Business Failure Defense

Article 13(I)(c) - "in the case of a merger resulting in the change of control of a business, the business faces actual or imminent financial failure and the merger offers the least anti-competitive alternative use of the assets of the business."

--AchalOza 16:55, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Tunisia 1994 Dominance Limits Access

This is includes a prohibition against a dominant firm refusing to sell without a valid reason. Is that "Limits Access?"

Article 5 - Abuse of a dominant position or a state of economic dependence can consist in particular purchase or refusal to sell, sales or purchase bound, in minimum price imposed for the resale, in commercial conditions of sale without valid reason or with the only reason which the partner refuses to subject to unjustified commercial conditions

--AchalOza 05:59, 18 July 2007 (MDT)

Hytlon: code this as Limiting Access but include a comment that it's a prohibition against refusing to sell. --AchalOza 10:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

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)