User talk:AchalOza
Albania 2003 Pre-Merger Notification
This sounds like a pre-merger notification requirement:
Art. 14(1) - "A concentration, under article 10, shall not be put into effect either: a) before its notification nearby the Authority or b) until it has been authorized by the Authority, or c) until conditions attached to the authorization are fulfilled."
--AchalOza 12:53, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I think a pre-merger notification can be inferred from this. Agreed.
--JWSchneider 17:39, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
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)
Armenia 2000 Extraterritoriality
Sounds to me like the scope extends to foreign companies that have an effect on Armenia:
Article 2. The Subject Governed by the Law
1. The present Law shall apply to those activities and conduct of economic entities, government and local government administration bodies, which might result in the restriction, prevention and distortion of competition or in acts of unfair competition, except where otherwise stipulated by law.
--AchalOza 13:18, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd ask Hylton. It doesn't restrict application to the state, nor does it explicitly extend it to foreign firms. With this kind of language, my guess is that extraterritoriality applies.
--JWSchneider 17:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Discussed with Hylton. He said where it does not explicitly allow extraterritoriality, we should not infer it.
--AchalOza 13:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Armenia 2000 Output Restraint and Big-Rigging
Would this include output restraint and big-rigging?
Article 5. Anti-competitive Agreements and Prohibition of Anti-competitive Agreements
1. In the context of the present Law, anti-competitive agreements are contracts and agreements concluded between economic entities or their concerted practices (hereinafter referred to as “agreements”), which might result in the restriction, prevention, prohibition of competition. These are the . . . (b) artificial increase, decrease or maintenance of prices on the commodity markets;
--AchalOza 13:32, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
My call: Output restraint, Yes. Big-rigging, No.
--JWSchneider 17:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Discussed with Hylton. He said the statute cited only applies to price fixing and not output restraint and bid-rigging. For those two, we should stick to locating specific language. However, the statute does include language indicated an efficiency defense (Art. 5(2)) and prohibits market sharing (Art. 5(1)(c)).
--AchalOza 13:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Argentina 1999 Divestures
This is translated from Spanish, but it sounds to me like it allows for divestures.
Article 46(c) "Without damage of other sanctions that will be able to correspond, when acts are verified that constitute abuse of dominant position or when it is stated that it has acquired itself or consolidated a monopolistic or oligopolical position in violation of the dispositions of this law, the Court will be able to impose the fulfillment of conditions that aim to neutralize the distorsivos aspects on the competition or to ask for the competent judge who the infractoras companies are dissolved, eliminated, dispersed or divided;"
--AchalOza 17:16, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely. "Dissolved," "dispersed," and "divided" all sound like divestitures to me.
--JWSchneider 17:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Argentina 1999 3rd Party Initiation
Again, translated from Spanish. This seems to allow 3rd Party Initiation:
Article 26 -"The procedure will begin of office or by denunciation made by any physical or legal, public or deprived person."
--AchalOza 17:27, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
"Deprived" person? Google may have translated this wrong. Maybe the term for "private" also means deprived? Based on this, it certainly looks like it's leaning towards private initiation.
--JWSchneider 17:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I should have clarified this. Based on the rest of the text, I think "deprived person" means "injured party."
--AchalOza 09:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Argentina 1999 Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
Sounds like it allows damages for 3rd parties:
Article 51, "The physical people or legal victims by the acts prohibited by this law, will be able to exert the action for damages of damages and damages as the norms of the common right, before the competent judge in that matter."
--AchalOza 17:39, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed.
--JWSchneider 17:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Argentina 1999 3rd Party Rights
Seems like they're saying that people who are affected by the anti-competitive firm have a right to evidence (the investigated facts):
Article 42, "The Court will be able to give intervention like helping part in the procedures that are abridged before he himself, the affected ones of the investigated facts, to the associations of consumers and associations legally recognized industralists, to the provinces and all other person who can have a legitimate interest in the investigated facts."
--AchalOza 17:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed.
--JWSchneider 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)