The Brazilian Experience with Excessive Pricing Cases: Hello, Goodbye

Ribeiro, Eduardo Pontual; Mattos, Claudio De

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92831-9_7

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…** The Brazilian competition authority (CADE) has not accepted cases on exploitative practices such as excessive prices and price discrimination, if unrelated to other practices, such as exclusion 15 . See, e.g., Ribeiro & Mattos (2018). Some types of conduct are presumed to have strong anticompetitive effect in all jurisdictions.…”

Section: Abuse Of Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Practice of Efficiency Defense in Antitrust Cases: A Comparison of BRICS and European Cases

Ribeiro,

Golovanova

2023

BRICS law journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In non-merger antitrust cases efficiencies should play a significant role when authorities decide on cases as many potentially anticompetitive practices may have pro-competition effects, according to economic theory. In many jurisdictions rule of reason or effect based legal standard is claimed to be the policy adopted according to the own authorities. For such legal standards, considering efficiencies is part of the standard analysis protocol. We review the practice of efficiency defense in antitrust cases in selected BRICS and European countries. The case study shows that efficiencies are considered in rulings less often than expected. Similar arguments are used across countries, suggesting a common underlying economic analysis across jurisdictions that may have different legal institutions. We have employed the cross-country comparison based on Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa cases. We also summarize the main reasons for efficiencies analysis not to be able to reverse the concluded anticompetitive effect from a business practice.

show abstract

Section: Abuse Of Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Practice of Efficiency Defense in Antitrust Cases: A Comparison of BRICS and European Cases

Ribeiro,

Golovanova

2023

BRICS law journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The competition authority's inability to keep the balance of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals under a constraining budget -and citing this as a reason to abandon the enforcement of a particular rule -is not specific to Russia. Ribeiro and Mattos (2018) explain how the inability to adopt a reasonable standard of evidence motivated Brazilian competition authority Conselho Administrative de Defesa Econômica (CADE) to exclude the illegality of excessive pricing from competition legislation. In this respect, our article contributes to the existing literature in three ways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concerted practice enforcement in Russia: How judicial review shapes the standards of evidence and number of enforcement targets

Avdasheva¹,

Golovanova²

2020

RUJEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A judicial review of the infringement decisions of the competition authority substantially affects the standard of evidence in competition enforcement as well as the structure of cases that the competition authority takes. Enforcement against concerted practice in Russia represents a case-study of interaction between commercial courts of first instance, the Highest Court, the competition authority as enforcer, market participants and the legislator to influence the standards of liability under investigation of concerted practice. We examine the judicial review of infringement decisions on concerted practice and track the evolution of legal definition and sufficiency of evidence in such cases. We show, first, that in Russian enforcement, the ability of the Highest Court to influence the criteria of first instance courts is limited (in contrast to the ability of the first instance court to influence the strategy of enforcement by the competition authority). Second, the increase in the burden of proof motivates the competition authority to refrain from an investigation of concerted practice, in accordance with the prediction of the model of the selection of enforcement target by reputation-maximizing authority.

show abstract