Authorization Applications For Mergers example essay topic

Agreements that contain an exclusionary provision. Sometimes referred to as a primary boycott', these are agreements between persons in competition with each other which exclude or limit dealings with a particular supplier or customer or a particular class of suppliers or customers (s. 45 (2) ). Exclusionary provision is defined in's.

4 D. Agreements that fix prices (s. 45 A). This includes agreements, which purport to recommend prices but which in reality fix prices by agreement. Some joint ventures and collective buying groups are excluded from this prohibition. The A is able to authorize agreements between competitors to fix the price of goods, where significant benefit to the public from the agreement can be established. Secondary boycotts are prohibited by's.

45 D. They involve action by two or more people. For example, members of a union or trade association, which hinders or prevents a third person from: supplying goods or services to a business; acquiring goods or services from a business; or engaging in interstate or overseas trade or commerce; where the target business is not the employer of those imposing the boycott. A boycott of this kind will be prohibited if it substantially lessens competition. The A statutory function in considering an application for authorization is to apply one of two tests, depending on the conduct in question. For agreements that may substantially lessen competition, the applicant must satisfy the A that the agreement results in a benefit to the public that outweighs any anti-competitive effect. For primary and secondary boycotts, third line forcing, resale price maintenance and mergers, the applicant must satisfy the A that the conduct results in a benefit to the public such that it should be allowed to occur.

Except for mergers, the A must publish a draft determination and provide the opportunity for a conference of interested parties, before making a final decision whether to grant authorization. The immunity conferred by authorization operates only from the time the A grants final authorization. The Tribunal is required to determine appeals from the A in merger authorization cases within 60 days (s. 102 (1 A) ). However, this time limit does not apply if the matter is especially complex or other special circumstances arise (s. 102 (1 B) ).

Moreover, authorization applications for mergers are covered by additional specific legislative requirements. The A must make a decision on such applications within 30 days of receiving them (plus any time taken by the applicant to provide additional information sought by the A ). In deciding whether to grant the authorization, the A will consider all potential public benefits from the proposed merger. It is specifically required by the Trade Practices Act to regard as a public benefit because of a significant increase in the real value of exports, or significant import substitution. The Trade Practices Act of 1974 takes into account all relevant matters that relate to the international competitiveness of Australian industry. Sources: web web web.