DEC-13(1)

We’re looking at a pretty basic question in this issue—Has the definition of a cartel expanded so that a wider variety of antitrust violations are being brought as cartel violations? Our guest editor, Rein Wesseling, introduces the discussion with an indication that the answer may be an uncomfortable “yes.” Our contributors carry the argument forward with four intriguing case studies, three that seem to affirm the answer—and one that may not.

And we follow with a note on a highly significant Canadian Supreme Court decision holding that indirect purchasers are entitled to assert claims for damages and restitution in class actions relying upon alleged competition law offenses—an opinion that every authority wrestling with this issue, or company operating in (or selling to) Canada, needs to take a look at.

The Ballooning Definition of Cartels

Rein Wesseling, Dec 17, 2013

Is the Definition of a Cartel Ballooning?

Arguably, however, the factors preventing the cartel concept from widening and becoming more blurred are no longer as pre-eminent as the concept has moved away from the U.S. criminal law framework. Rein Wesseling (Stibbe)

Cecil Saehoon Chung, Seung Hyuck Han, Sung Bom Park, Dec 17, 2013

Ballooning Definition of Cartel and Information Exchange in Korea

Antitrust enforcement agencies by their very own nature do, and indeed need to, push the boundaries of the law where appropriate and necessary. However… Cecil Saehoon Chung, Sung Bom Park, S

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!