Category: Commentary Elsewhere

The Auto Parts Antitrust Case: Is This What Success Looks Like?

Commentary Elsewhere: from writers around the web. Please note the explanation of this section on the “About the Site” page. From AntitrustConnect Blog: The Auto Parts Antitrust Case: Is This What Success Looks Like? “Compliance Strategists Compliance Strategists Wow, what a success! The Antitrust Division recently announced that its investigations in the auto parts market uncovered “separate conspiracies to fix the prices of more than 30 different products sold to US car manufacturers ….” [1] This … Continue reading → • Leave a comment on The Auto Parts Antitrust Case: Is This What Success Looks Like? “

ROUNDTABLE ON EX OFFICIO CARTEL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE USE OF SCREENS

Commentary Elsewhere: from writers around the web. Please note the explanation of this section on the “About the Site” page. From Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog: ROUNDTABLE ON EX OFFICIO CARTEL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE USE OF SCREENS “Rosa Abrantes Metz (Global Economics Group) has written on ROUNDTABLE ON EX OFFICIO CARTEL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE USE OF SCREENS for the OECD.”

Worldwide Competition Database is Up and Running

Commentary Elsewhere: from writers around the web. Please note the explanation of this section on the “About the Site” page. From Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog: Worldwide Competition Database is Up and Running “Posted by William E. Kovacic, Marianela Lopez-Galdos & Elisa Ramundo, GW Competition Law Center The George Washington Law School Competition Law Center has created a Worldwide Competition Database containing a unique compilation of data on existing competition systems. The database…”

Flatline

Commentary Elsewhere: from writers around the web. Please note the explanation of this section on the “About the Site” page. From Chillin’Competition: Flatline “I recently had the opportunity to sift through the recent case-law of the Court. The CJEU ruling in Allianz Hungary, C-32/11 stands out. Our Lords again blurred the object/effect distinction. The Court held that “object” restrictions can be established by proof of anticompetitive effects: “§34. Accordingly, where the anti-competitive object of the agreement is established it is […]”