Summer 2011, Volume 8 Number 2

In this issue:

For our summer finale, we present an antipasto of three mini symposia. The first includes papers inspired by the recent OECD conference, two on network neutrality and one on best practices-or maybe worst practices would be more appropriate. The second updates some of our issues from previous months, including papers on credit rating agencies, the Sherman Act's extraterritorial reach, the EU's approach to Chinese Soe's, and the historic Movil ruling in Mexico. Our third symposium delves into the continuing issue of the challenges developing countries face in developing competition policy; in this case, we look at Russia.

OECD Inspired: Network Neutrality & Best Practices
  1. David Evans, Aug 30, 2011

    Net Neutrality Regulation and the Evolution of the Internet Economy

    Do we know enough to be sure that there are market failures that should be corrected or that policymakers could know enough about the present and future of the internet economy to devise regulations that would improve social welfare? (David S. Evans, Global Economics Group & UCL)

  2. Frank Maier-Rigaud, Aug 30, 2011

    Network Neutrality: A Competition Angle

    Certain aspects associated with network neutrality, and linked not only to content and identity but also the blocking of certain content or applications, may raise serious competition concerns. (Frank Maier-Rigaud, OECD)

  3. Caron Beaton-Wells, Brent Fisse, Aug 30, 2011

    Australia’s Proposed Information Disclosure Legislation: International Worst Practice

    The Australian government has proposed amendments to the CCA that aim to regulate information disclosure; if enacted, the proposal could be said to represent international worst practice. (Caron Beaton-Wells & Brent Fisse, Univ. of Melbourne Law School)

Hot Topic Updates
  1. Norman Neyrinck, Nicolas Petit, Aug 30, 2011

    Credit Rating Agencies and Competition Law

    Interestingly, while all the evidence points to the existence of a competition problem in the rating industry, almost nothing has been written on whether the CRAs could be amenable to antitrust scrutiny. (Nicolas Petit & Norman Neyrinck, Univ. of Liege School of Law )

  2. Anthony Biagioli, Mark Popofsky, Aug 30, 2011

    The Sherman Act’s Criminal Extraterritorial Reach: Unresolved Questions Raised By United States v. AU Optronics Corp

    This case presents a rare opportunity to litigate unresolved issues respecting the antitrust laws’ applicability to international cartels in the criminal context. (Mark S. Popofsky & Anthony Biagioli, Ropes & Gray)

  3. Kiran Desai, Manu Mohan, Aug 30, 2011

    Fear of the Chinese or Business as Usual at the European Commission? EU Merger Regulation and the Assessment of Transactions Involving Chinese State-owned Enterprises

    The recent EC decisions regarding transactions by Chinese State-owned enterprises raised several issues, not the least of which is whether the vagueness in the decisions could put off future sellers. (Kiran Desai & Manu Mohan, Mayer Brown)

  4. Victor Pavon-Villamayor, Aug 30, 2011

    Margin Squeeze in Mexican Mobile Telecommunications

    The debate over the Competition Commission's determination that TELCEL is incurring a margin squeeze has been centered (almost) exclusively on the enormous size of the fine imposed and the polarized nature of the Commissioners’ votes—but there has not been a proper discussion on the economic reasoning over which this case was constructed. (Víctor Pavón-Villamayor, Federal Telecommunications Commission, Mexico)

Russia: Developments in Competition Policy
  1. Svetlana Avdasheva, Andrey Shastitko, Aug 30, 2011

    Introduction of Leniency Programs for Cartel Participants: The Russian Case

    Certain characteristics of competition policy in Russia still objectively hinder the effectiveness of the leniency program, even after recent changes. (Andrey Shastitko, Bureau of Economic Analysis, & Svetlana Avdasheva, National Research Univ., Higher School of Economics).

  2. Andrey Shastitko, Aug 30, 2011

    Collective Dominance Through the Lens of Comparative Antitrust

    Are there grounds to believe that Russian law enforcement follows European practices by borrowing the European norm of collective dominance, and adapting it in Russia to deal with its emerging market economy? (Andrey Shastitko, Bureau of Economic Analysis Foundation)


About the Antitrust Chronicle

The CPI Antitrust Chronicle is published online, semi-monthly. It contains cutting-edge commentary on current global antitrust and competition policy issues.

Past Issues


The Antitrust Chronicle

Editor-in-Chief: David S. Evans

Managing Editor: Lauren Chiang

Senior Editor: Lindsay W. McSweeney

Social Media: Anna Tzanaki

Subscription Manager: Susan Roberts

Office Manager: Kristen Adrian

Editorial Advisory Board:

Kent Bernard, Fordham School of Law

Rachel Brandenburger, Washington D.C.

Adrian Emch, Hogan Lovells

Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Herbert Smith

Jay Himes, Labaton Sucharow

James Killick, White & Case

Stephen Kinsella, Sidley Austin

Ioannis Lianos, University College London

Elisa Mariscal, Federal Competition Commission, Mexico

Robert O'Donoghue, Brick Court Chambers

Aaron Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen

Nicolas Petit, University of Lìege

William Rooney, Willkie, Farr, & Gallagher

Daniel Sokol, University of Florida Levin School of Law

Joshua Wright, George Mason Law School