i
Our call to publish in our next issue is now open!
The Revista de Derecho Económico (Journal of Economic Law) invites the academic community, both national and international, to send their articles to our website, in the "Send article" section. The article must comply the rules indicated in the "Submissions" section.
The call is open untill October 15, 2023.
Suitability of divestiture measeures in non-merger cases
Authors
-
Alex León Ramírez
Egresado de Derecho
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8592-5712
Abstract
The article addresses divestiture measures in non-merger cases, highlighting their relevance in competition law. These measures, which have a significant impact on market structure, are less common in consultative and contentious procedures compared to their application in mergers, where they are typically used to mitigate horizontal risks. However, in exceptional cases, such as those involving abuse of dominant position or monopolization, they have been successfully applied. The article also emphasizes that the primary purpose of divestiture measures is to restore competition and prevent the recurrence of anti-competitive practices. The analysis includes a discussion of the legal nature of these measures, suggesting that, while they are not sanctions in the strict sense, they may acquire a punitive character in certain cases, especially when total divestitures are imposed, significantly limiting the property rights of the undertakings involved. In most cases, however, they are considered corrective or preventive measures, designed to restore competitive balance in markets affected by violations. The article concludes that the imposition of divestiture measures must be based on the principles of effectiveness and proportionality. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating whether less burdensome alternatives exist to achieve the same objectives without excessively harming the affected economic agents. Finally, this analysis should be more restrictive in cases where total disvestiture is sought.
Keywords:
antitrust, divestiture, structural remedies, proportionality, effectivenessReferences
* Adams, Walter (1951). «Dissolution, divorcement, divestiture: The pyrrhic victories of antitrust». Indiana Law Journal, 27 (1): 1-35. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1gC.
* Beneke, Francisco y Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt (2020). «Remedies for algorithmic tacit collusion». Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 9 (1): 152-176. DOI: 10.1093/jaenfo/jnaa040.
* Bermúdez, Jorge (1998). «Elementos para definir las sanciones administrativas». Revista Chilena de Derecho, 25 (número especial): 323-344. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1gM.
* Bloodstein, Ben (2019). «Amazon and platform antitrust». Fordham Law Review, 88 (1): 187-230. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1gY.
* Carstensen, Peter (2012). «Remedies for monopolization from Standard Oil to Microsoft and Intel: The changing nature of monopoly law from elimination of market power to regulation of its use». Southern California Law Review, 85: 815-849. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3260714.
* Cordero, Eduardo (2013). «Concepto y naturaleza de las sanciones administrativas en la doctrina y jurisprudencia chilena». Revista de Derecho (Universidad Católica del Norte), 20 (1): 79-103. Disponible en: https://tipg.link/S1gf.
* Crandall, Robert (2001). «The failure of structural remedies in Sherman Act monopolization cases». AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 1 (5). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.286357.
* Depolo, Radoslav (2018). La orden o medida de desinversión en los procedimientos de consulta seguidos ante el H. Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia. Informe en Derecho. Santiago.
* Díez, Fernando (2008). «Remedios, condiciones y obligaciones impuestas al término de un expediente sancionador». En Santiago Martínez y Amadeu Petitbò (editores), Remedios y sanciones en el derecho de la competencia. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
* García, William (2010). Manual de la libre competencia. Santiago: Thomson Reuters.
* Gerber, Benjamin (2007). «Enabling interlock benefits while preventing anticompetitive harm: Toward an optimal definition of competitors under section 8 of the Clayton Act». Yale Journal on Regulation, 24 (1): 107-136. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1gz.
* Grunberg, Jorge (2022). «La regulación del interlocking en el Decreto Ley 211 de 1973». En Domingo Valdés y Omar Vásquez (editores), Nuevo régimen de la libre competencia. Santiago: Rubicon.
* Hovenkamp, Herbert (2021). «Antitrust and platform monopoly». The Yale Law Journal, 130: 1953-2050. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3639142.
—. (2024). «Structural antitrust relief against digital platforms». Journal of Law & Innovation, 7 (1): 1-47. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4616175.
* Kovacic (1989). «Failed expectations: The troubled past and uncertain future of the Sherman Act as a tool for deconcentration». Iowa Law Review, 74 (5): 1105-1150. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1hD.
* Kwoka, John y Tommaso Valletti (2021). «Unscrambling the eggs: Breaking up consummated mergers and dominant firms». Industrial and Corporate Change, 30 (5): 1286-1306. DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtab050.
* Maier-rigaud, Frank (2016). «Behavioural versus structural remedies in EU competition law». En Philip Lowe, Mel Marquis y Giorgio Monti (editores), European competition law annual 2013: Effective and legitimate enforcement of competition law. Oxford: Hart. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1hh.
* Marcos, Francisco (2018). «Remedios y obligaciones impuestos por las autoridades de defensa de la competencia». Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 10 (1): 331-371. DOI: 10.20318/cdt.2018.4125.
* Montt, Santiago (2012). «Condiciones impuestas por el Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia en el marco de una operación de concentración en el derecho chileno». Anuario de Derecho Público, 1: 453-494. Disponible en: https://tipg.link/S1hn.
* Motta, Massimo, Michelle Polo y Helder Vasconcelos (2003). «Merger remedies in the European Union: An overview». En François Lévêque (editor), Merger remedies in American and European Union competition law. Londres: Edward Elgar.
* OECD, Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (2006). Remedies and sanctions in abuse of dominance cases: Key findings, summary and notes. OECD Roundtables on Competition Policy Papers, 65. DOI: 10.1787/b98add5f-en.
—. (2012). «Remedies in merger cases: Key findings, summary and notes». OECD Roundtables on Competition Policy Papers, 125. DOI: 10.1787/51e1d94a-en.
—. (2022). Disentangling consummated mergers-experiences and challenges. Disponible en https://tipg.link/S1i8.
* Posner, Richard (2001). Antitrust law. 2.ª ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
* Valdés, Domingo (2006). Libre competencia y monopolio. Santiago: Jurídica.
—. (2013).« La potestad sancionatoria del TDLC para modificar o terminar actos y convenciones». Gaceta jurídica, 392: 83-105.
