Applying Critical Loss for Market Definition in Merger Analysis: Do Court Decisions Offer Insight?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm B. Coate ◽  
Shawn W. Ulrick ◽  
John M. Yun
Keyword(s):  
Market Definition ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Merger Analysis

On the Risks of Using the Sequential Product-Level SSNIP Approach to Identify Relevant Antitrust Markets‡

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Padilla ◽  
Salvatore Piccolo ◽  
Pekka Sääskilahti
Keyword(s):  
Market Definition ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Demand Functions ◽  
Product Level ◽  
Loss Analysis ◽  
Merger Analysis ◽  
Influential Paper ◽  
Sequential Product

Abstract In a recent influential paper Coate et al. (2021) have criticized the sequential product-level approach to market definition in merger review. They argue that a simultaneous market-level approach to critical loss is more appropriate than a product-level critical loss analysis, because under certain plausible demand scenarios (nonlinear demand functions) the latter could yield the wrong answer on market definition—i.e., excessively broad or narrow markets. We extend their analysis by showing that a sequential product-level approach actually leads to an excessively narrow market definition when the typical nonlinear demand functions used in merger analysis are employed.

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

An old friend is better than two new ones? Approaches to market research in the context of digital transformation for the antitrust laws enforcement

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Shastitko ◽  
O. A. Markova
Keyword(s):  
Business Models ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Market Definition ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Pass Through ◽  
Type Ii Errors

Digital transformation has led to changes in business models of traditional players in the existing markets. What is more, new entrants and new markets appeared, in particular platforms and multisided markets. The emergence and rapid development of platforms are caused primarily by the existence of so called indirect network externalities. Regarding to this, a question arises of whether the existing instruments of competition law enforcement and market analysis are still relevant when analyzing markets with digital platforms? This paper aims at discussing advantages and disadvantages of using various tools to define markets with platforms. In particular, we define the features of the SSNIP test when being applyed to markets with platforms. Furthermore, we analyze adjustment in tests for platform market definition in terms of possible type I and type II errors. All in all, it turns out that to reduce the likelihood of type I and type II errors while applying market definition technique to markets with platforms one should consider the type of platform analyzed: transaction platforms without pass-through and non-transaction matching platforms should be tackled as players in a multisided market, whereas non-transaction platforms should be analyzed as players in several interrelated markets. However, if the platform is allowed to adjust prices, there emerges additional challenge that the regulator and companies may manipulate the results of SSNIP test by applying different models of competition.

MENIMBANG PRINSIP ”DUTY OF CARE”: ‘PEMBELI’ MELAWAN ‘PEMBELI’ DALAM SENGKETA JUAL BELI TANAH

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Widodo Dwi Putro ◽  
Ahmad Zuhairi
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Physical Data ◽  
Agrarian Law ◽  
Land Sale

ABSTRAKSengketa jual beli tanah dalam perkara ini menyeret pihak penjual yang telah menjual objek yang sama kepada dua pembeli dalam dua kali transaksi. Pembeli kedua (penggugat) melayangkan gugatannya terhadap pembeli pertama (tergugat II). Posisi hukumnya dilematis. Kedua pembeli sama-sama merasa mempunyai hak atas tanah sengketa karena telah membeli objek yang sama dari penjual. Untuk membuktikan siapa pembeli yang berhak, hakim perlu mempertimbangkan asas "iktikad baik" (good faith), sebagai dasar untuk menentukan pembeli yang patut mendapat perlindungan hukum. Permasalahannya, kedua pembeli sama-sama mengklaim dirinya adalah pembeli yang beriktikad baik. Sehingga, untuk menilai siapa pembeli yang patut mendapat perlindungan hukum, hakim berpegangan pada prinsip duty of care, dengan mempertimbangkan siapa pembeli yang berhati-hati dan cermat memeriksa data yuridis dan data fisik sebelum dan saat jual beli dilakukan. Prinsip duty of care ini bersifat abstrak, maka metode penulisan yang digunakan, menelusuri dan mengkaji pendapat para ahli hukum perdata dan agraria untuk didialogkan dengan putusan-putusan hakim. Perkembangan putusan-putusan pengadilan mengenai pembeli beriktikad baik yang mengadopsi prinsip duty of care, seharusnya menjadi 'pegangan' para hakim dalam menangani kasus yang serupa, untuk menilai kapan pembeli dikategorikan sebagai pembeli beriktikad baik.Kata kunci: iktikad baik, perlindungan hukum, duty of care, data yuridis dan fisik.ABSTRACTThe dispute of land sale and purchase in this case drag the seller who had sold the same object to two buyers in two transactions. The second buyer (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the first buyer (defendant II). Its legal standing created a dilemma. Both buyers felt equally entitled to be the owner of the disputed land, which is the same object purchased from the seller. In providing evidence of the most eligible buyer, the judge should take into consideration the principle of "good faith" as the basis for determining the buyer deserving legal protection. The problem is that both buyers claimed that they were buyers of good faith. Therefore, to appraise which buyer deserving the legal protection, the judges adhered to principle of "duty of care" by taking into account which one of them was carefully and meticulously reading-through the juridical and physical data prior to and during the sale and purchase of the land was conducted. Given the abstract nature of the principle of "duty of care" the analysis method used in this discussion is exploring and studying the opinions of the experts of civil and agrarian law as to be juxtaposed with the decisions of the judges. The development of court decisions related to the issue of good faith buyers adopting the principle of "duty of care" should serve as a reference for the judges in handling similar cases to determine a good faith buyer.Keywords: good faith, legal protection, duty of care, juridical and physical data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document