Contemporary Issues in Competition Law

This 3-volume bound set examines the technical legal framework of competition law and policy issues in antitrust law. This page lists the main topics that will be discussed at recent and upcoming meetings of the OECD Competition Committee. The results of these discussions will then be published online on www.oecd.org/competition/roundtables. In 9 chapters and more than 220 pages, the Case Law Section addresses some of the fundamental issues in the design of competition policy, such as its social policy objectives, its evolutionary process (particularly through the common law tradition in the United States), the balance between under-inclusive and overly inclusive errors, the sharing of the burden of proof and the dividing line between competition law and other forms of government intervention in the marketplace. Competition and consumer protection issues in the debate on net neutrality, with particular reference to Europe – Paper by Martin Cave In the 12 chapters and more than 260 pages Final, application section, you will find a detailed discussion of the problems related to the application of competition law, including enforcement mechanisms, the design of punitive, injunctive and monetary measures, and the extraterritorial scope of a jurisdiction`s antitrust laws. “This anthology is an impressive collection of leading multidisciplinary voices on modern Australian competition law: a current judge of the Federal Court of Justice of Australia and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Australia; Chairman and Chief Economist of the Federal Agency, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; Economists, private lawyers and academics in law, economics and economics. Each article is a discreet and valuable analysis. Together, they have a lively, detailed and thoughtful debate. This collection is an invaluable and essential tool for practitioners, generalists and specialists, regulators, lawyers, law students and members of the public from whom these laws exist to benefit.

This merger between Anheuser and Busch ended with fifteen conditions imposed, many of which relate to issues that, at first glance, are not directly related to the merger. Although the use of conditions to address competition and public service concerns is not a new approach. The Commission seems to be tackling the problems more creatively, more directly and perhaps with a view to achieving broader policy objectives. The objective of this course is to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to understand, apply and analyse legal rules in competition law systems around the world. The remedy has led to different opinions and critics see the remedy as a punishment. The remedy is innovative and aims to promote a competitive environment in the market in the future. Competition authorities have broad powers to find ways to combat anti-competitive behaviour and it seems that they are increasingly looking for alternatives to traditional sanctions or obligations not to participate in behaviour in the future. The call will be a symbolic development for the law of predatory pricing, regardless of the direction in which it goes. In 2016, South African competition authorities adopted creative approaches to remedies and conditions.

Three recent cases come to mind, namely; ArcelorMittal`s agreement with the Competition Commission on allegations of antitrust; Media24 against the Competition Commission, which referred to predatory pricing allegations concerning municipal newspapers in the Welkom region and the merger between Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller. These cases all deal with different competition law issues, but what is common among them is the creative approach used by competition authorities to combat anti-competitive behaviour or effects. A number of complaints have been lodged with the competition authorities concerning ArcelorMittal. The Competition Commission argued that the steel producer was part of a cartel that cooperated with CISCO, Scaw and Cape Gate by setting prices and discounts, allocating customers and exchanging commercially sensitive market information for the production of long steel products. The Commission also claimed that ArcelorMittal and others had set the purchase prices for scrap metal and flat steel. ArcelorMittal acknowledged all the allegations against it, with the exception of the determination of the purchase price of flat steel. In addition, two persistent complaints were lodged for abuse of a dominant position on the market. Finally, the Commission and ArcelorMittal reached an agreement in which an administrative penalty of R1.5 billion was paid, as well as various corrective measures. ArcelorMittal accepted remedies for complaints against its pricing behaviour without admitting that its pricing behaviour constituted a violation of the Competition Act.

In particular, it was agreed to limit the EBIT margin (profit before interest and taxes) of flat steel products sold in South Africa to an upper limit of 10% for a period of 5 years.