UK Merger Remedies under Scrutiny

M. Harker
{"title":"UK Merger Remedies under Scrutiny","authors":"M. Harker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.960226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the Somerfield decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). In that decision, the CAT demonstrated a high degree of deference to the Competition Commission where the latter was scoping divestiture remedies in a merger case. This approach is consistent with the case law of the US and the EC and, it is argued, is appropriate given the need for procedural expediency. The decision is placed in the wider context of the debates over the efficacy of merger remedies and the appropriate limits of judicial supervision of agency discretion in this area.","PeriodicalId":375048,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Business Law","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.960226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper focuses on the Somerfield decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). In that decision, the CAT demonstrated a high degree of deference to the Competition Commission where the latter was scoping divestiture remedies in a merger case. This approach is consistent with the case law of the US and the EC and, it is argued, is appropriate given the need for procedural expediency. The decision is placed in the wider context of the debates over the efficacy of merger remedies and the appropriate limits of judicial supervision of agency discretion in this area.
受到审查的英国并购补救措施
本文主要研究了竞争上诉法庭(CAT)的Somerfield判决。在该决定中,反垄断委员会表现出对竞争委员会的高度尊重,后者正在合并案件中确定剥离补救措施的范围。这种做法与美国和欧共体的判例法是一致的,有人认为,考虑到程序上的权宜之计,这种做法是适当的。该决定是在关于合并补救措施的效力和司法监督机构在这一领域的酌情权的适当限制的辩论的更广泛背景下作出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信