Competition Law & Economics Discussion Group
This Discussion Group meets to discuss recent competition related developments and decisions, as well as academic articles and other relevant publications. The aim of the Group is to inform debate on competition issues both within academia and within the legal profession, as well as to provide another forum for dialogue between members of the ACCC, academics and practitioners in this field. While there will be a discussion opener for each session, these sessions are intended to be participatory and it is important to the quality of discussion that participants have read the decision, article or any other material provided in advance that is intended to be the subject of the meeting.
Meetings will be held approximately every second month. They will be held at the Melbourne Law School from 12.30pm to approximately 2.00 pm.
Academics, Higher Research Degree Students, practising lawyers, economists and consultants who have an interest in competition law and economics are welcome to join the Discussion Group. If you would like to join the mailing list, please send your name and affiliation to our Centre Administrator.
NEXT DISCUSSION GROUP
2012
The following speakers and dates have been set for the Discussion Group series in early 2012 however a few of the topics are yet to be determined.
Tuesday 13 March - Professor Roger Ware
Topic: Proving 'Substantial Lessening of Competition' - An Economist's Perspective
Abstract: Professor Ware will draw on his experience as an expert witness in a well known Canadian competition case (Commissioner of Competition v Canada Pipe, 2005 Comp. Trib. 3 (Feb, 2005) CT-2002-006) to discuss the substantive issues and challenges of evidence that arise in proving that exclusive dealing is likely to substantially lessen competition. The case raises the classic competition issues that are relevant in the context of exclusive dealing and abuse of dominance, including market definition, market power, barriers to entry and economies of scale. The decision in the case can be accessed here. Professor Ware has also provided the following ancilliary material:
Article - Baziliauskas, A. and R. Ware, "Does Canada Pipe Really have Market Power?" Canadian Competition Record, 2005
Federal Court of Appeals Decision: Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Canada Pipe Co. (FCA) Federal Court of Appeal, Desjardins, Letourneau and Pelletier JJ.A. - Ottawa, 7,9th February and 23rd June 2006.
About Professor Ware - Roger is a Professor of Economics at Queen's University, Kingston, Canada and has been providing consulting services in the competition and regulation area since 1993. Prof. Ware has provided expert consulting in some of Canada's most prominent contested Competition cases. He was the testifying expert for Canada Pipe in 2004, the first victory (subsequently appealed and settled) by a respondent in an Abuse of Dominance case since the passage of the 1986 Competition Act. Prof. Ware has provided expert consulting also in the Regulation field, including testifying on telecommunications policy at the CRTC and providing expert advice on energy policy. He has provided consulting for cases in many specialised industries that also include energy and airlines.
Where: Melbourne Law School, Level 9, Common Room from 12.30-2pm. A light lunch will be served.
If you would like to attend, please click here to register.
Thursday 24 May - Professor Maurice Stucke
Abstract: this will follow shortly
About Prof. Stucke - Maurice is a Senior Fellow of Melbourne Law School teaching in the LLM and is Assoc. Prof. of Law at the University of Tennessee. He has more than a decade of litigation experience. He has assisted in defending Goldman Sachs, CS First Boston and Microsoft in civil antitrust litigation. He serves on several national and international academic advisory boards and is one of the United States' non-governmental advisors to the International Competition Network. He received a Fullbright Scholar grant to lecture in 2010-11 in the People's Republic of China and has received major awards for his scholarship, which has been cited by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Competition agencies and policymakers.
Tuesday 24 July - Dr. Russell Pittman
Topic: Competition and the railways
Abstract: this will follow shortly
About Dr. Pittman - Russell is the Director of Economic Research and Director of International Technical Assistance in the Economic Analysis Group, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice. He is also a visiting professor at the New Economic School, Moscow. He has published a large number of articles in scholarly journals; in addition to English language journals, his articles have been published in journals in Russia, Romania, and numerous other countries. His 1983 paper in the Economic Journal on the measurement of productivity in the presence of undesirable outputs is considered the seminal paper on that topic. He is currently co-editing a special issue of the journal Utilities Policy on electricity restructuring in South Eastern Europe. Russell consults regularly with antitrust enforcers and economic reformers in transition and developing economies, most recently with the Federal Antimonopoly Service in Russia, the Romanian Competition Council, the Indonesian KPPU. He has acted as an advisor on railroad restructuring projects in Brazil, China, Poland and Russia, and he served in the Core Team of the World Development Report 2002, Building Institutions for Markets. He also served on the team of experts for the Russian Regulatory Reform Review carried out by the OECD and the European Conference for Ministers of Transport in 2003-04 and was one of the three co-authors of its report, Regulatory Reform of Railways in Russia.
The Discussion Groups will take place from 12.30pm until approximately 2pm in the Law Boardroom - a light lunch will be provided
Where: Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street Carlton VIC 3053
If you would like to attend any of the above Discussion Groups and/or suggest any topics that the group might discuss, please contact the Centre Administrator.
PAST SESSIONS
2012
SESSION 1 - 9 February
Topic: Competition Law and Retail
Abstract: Antitrust's focus on efficiency has been a contributing factor to higher concentration in retail. So-called big box stores, large grocery chains, fewer department stores, and other structural changes may be the consequence of a post-industrial economy, but what is its impact on consumer welfare? Consolidation has certainly led to less consumer choice, but are consumers actually paying more for less? These questions have received some attention in recent years, most notably in Israel, where 450,000 people recently demonstrated after a negative report condemned the country's supermarket oligopoly. Similarly, the British Competition Commission has examined buyer power in that country's supermarket oligopoly. But most economists (and competition authorities) view retail as a pass-through cost, adding little or no value to a product, and restrained by easy entry. This work in (early) progress will consider competition law's treatment of retail. An earlier article by Professor Bauer considers some of these issues in the context of Macy's Department Store in the United States. To this article, please view click here.
This discussion was led by Professor Mark Bauer
2011
SESSION 7 - 30 November
Topic: New Zealand air freight decision
Abstract: An international air freight cartel, involving airlines from New Zealand, Japan, the UAE, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Australia, has been the subject of proceedings in courts around the world. The New Zealand Commerce Commission also issued proceedings concerning the operation of the cartel in New Zealand. However, some of the airlines claimed that the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts did not apply to in-bound cargo because the markets in which airlines competed in the provision of in-bound air cargo services were located wholly outside New Zealand. The decision under discussion can be found here.
Before hearing the substantive trial, the High Court decided that there should be a preliminary trial on the issue of market definition. The trial was conducted on the basis of agreed facts, and the only witnesses were economic experts. The Court deemed, the market for in-bound freight to be partly in New Zealand. This means that New Zealand courts do have jurisdiction over the air freight cartel relating to both in-bound and out-bound freight. The High Court of New Zealand handed down its decision in the first half of the air freight cartel case. Frontier (Australia) was retained by the Commerce Commission and gave evidence at the trial. The discussion will be led by Philip Williams from Frontier Economics
SESSION 6 - 19 October
Topic: Disqualification of Company Directors in Cartel Cases
Abstract: This paper examines the importance of director disqualification to effective cartel enforcement. It reviews Competition Disqualification Orders in the UK, sets out the justification for such orders and considers their main shortcomings. The paper then asks whether they would be a recommended practice for the European Commission or other jurisdictions.
The discussion will be led by Dr. Andreas Stephan, University of East Anglia
SESSION 5 - 22 September
Topic: The Metcash Decision
Abstract: The discussion topic surrounded the recent judgement in ACCC v Metcash which was handed down on 26 August 2011. Amongst other things, the judgement raises issues relating to market definition and the evidence used to support market definition, the counterfactual and the meaning of 'substantial lessening of competition' in the context of s.50. Karen Gibbons from Freehills led the discussion. The judgement can be accessed here.
Topic: Competition Law and Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Marking the Cartel Boundary
Abstract: Cartels today are prohibited under competition regimes around the world, although seen historically (in Europe at least) as a public good to be tolerated or even encouraged by governments. Despite the prohibition, illegal cartels are still prevalent, and there are circumstances where cartel-like conduct is allowed under competition rules. This article explores the extent to which such conduct can be both subject to one regulatory regime (competition law) while also carrying out private regulatory regimes (TPRERs). There are three categories of cartel-like arrangements: private contractural arrangements that fall outside the realm of competition law; self-regulatory arrangements designed to exclusively advance the interests of regulatees; and hybrid regimes where private arrangements have been co-opted as a form of regulation which operate in the shadow of competition law and are often seen as advancing competition objectives.
The discussion was led by Professor Imelda Maher, University College, Dublin
SESSION 3 - 26 May
Topic: Competition and Consumer Amendment (No 1) Bill - new prohibitions on information disclosures
The Bill and its EM are available here
The Senate Economics Committee's report on competition in the banking sector which discusses the price signalling proposals in chapter 8 can be found here
The discussion was be led by Associate Professor Caron Beaton-Wells (Melbourne Law School and Director of CLEN)
SESSION 2 - 29 March
Topic: The US Supreme Court decision in American Needle – treatment of joint ventures.
The Supreme Court’s decision is available here
The discussion was led by Professor Michael Jacobs of De Paul University (Senior Fellow at MLS in the MLM program).
SESSION 1 - 17 February
Topic: In the matter of Fortescue Metals Group Limited [2010] ACompT 2 (30 June 2010) - Part IIIA
The Australian Competition Tribunal’s decision here
The discussion was led by Joanne Daniels of Middletons (PhD candidate at MLS).
2010
SESSION 2 - 4 November
Topic: The ACCC's research program and its interface with external research
The discussion opener was Professor Michael Schaper, Deputy Chair, ACCC presented an overview of the ACCC's activity.
SESSION 1 - 9 September
Topic: The merger guidelines issued jointly by the US FTC and the DOJ in April 2010.
The guidelines are available here
The discussion was led by Richard York, Frontier Economics.