Holding Company liability for subsidiary company - Analysis of Literature Review

By

[Student Name]

[Faculty Name]

[Month]

[Year]

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION1

LITERATURE REVIEW (PART 1)3

HOLDING COMPANY LIABILITY FOR ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS OF THEIR SUBSIDIARIES3

LITERATURE REVIEW (PART 2)5

HOLDING COMPANY LIABILITY FOR DEBTS OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES5

LITERATURE REVIEW (PART 3)7

HOLDING COMPANY LIABILITY FOR SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IN THE ABUSE OF EC COMPETITION RULES7

LITERATURE REVIEW (PART 4)9

AGENCY RELATIONSHIP9

OVERALL ANALYSIS11

CONCLUDING REMARKS17

CONCLUSION22

REFERENCES23

INTRODUCTION

The European competition law has two basic prohibitions: the anti-competitive agreements between two or more undertakings and abuse of position dominant individual or collective (which may occur both in the case of unilateral conduct both respect of agreements concluded by the dominant party). The rules of liability with regards to European competition law only apply where trade between member states are affected significantly, but since the national law applies even in the absence of cross-border effects, we must always be in line with legislation applicable, even when the agreements involving members of a single state or unique to a state or region (Wymeersch, 1994, 25). The violation of European competition law and national level can lead to fines, liability for damages in some states and even criminal liability. The parent firms are required to comply with these guidelines. The liability arising from a breach of competition law can be objective - a member of the association may be held responsible for the violation committed by the rest of the association.

The companies with the economic power to act independently and to set prices without regard the demands of consumers or suppliers, or competitive pressures have a particular obligation not restricting competition and not to exploit their customers (Wooldridge, 1981, 81). The domain is essentially the power to set a high price, which is presumed if the company is the dominant share of supply and application (usually 40% or more). In the medical field, the companies were considered dominant in small markets and then the members should ensure that they are aware of the products or services in relation to which might be considered dominant. Although individual members may not be in a dominant position, the members of the association business may be considered collectively dominant in a specific market their products if four or less make up a significant portion (as perhaps around 80%) of the offer and are in contact with each other through the association. In an oligopolistic market, such parallel conduct that restricts competition or exploits customers may be considered abusive even if there is no evidence of active collusion (Whish, 2003, 23). At the time of the conduct of a dominant undertaking has a purpose or an anticompetitive effect without objective justification, it may result in penalties and civil liability.

LITERATURE REVIEW (PART 1)

HOLDING COMPANY LIABILITY FOR ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS OF THEIR SUBSIDIARIES

The aggressive enforcement of antitrust prohibitions laid down in the way of tort claims nature has so far acquired only a minor role in the EU. The ECJ's jurisprudence and the initiatives of the European Commission have brought this issue to the forefront. Since anti-competitive business practices mostly have a transnational character, ...