competition law

Action For Damages in Argentina: Recent Developments 150 150 Laura Lbierzychudek

Action For Damages in Argentina: Recent Developments

9 de julio - jacarandá

Since 1980, there has been private competition enforcement in Argentina as a material part of the antitrust enforcement system for compensation damages suffered as a result of antitrust violations. Nevertheless, we might say that the actions for damages on antitrust matters have not taken off yet.

In 2018, there was a new act that introduced a specific chapter on damages. Perhaps, it was one of the most important developments of the Act. In fact, it has made an essential progress in order to facilitate the proceedings of the claim before judicial court.

In this sense, the Act establishes:

  1. Individuals and legal entities may file a claim for damages, in accordance with the Argentine legislation, before the judge having jurisdiction. The Act adopts the criterion of the legal standing to sue for both direct and indirect victims. In the Act, no reference is made to the ‘passing-on’ defense, but considering that any aggrieved party (including indirect victims) may claim compensation for damages, it is reasonable to consider that the defendant may allege that the overcharges has been transferred ‘downstream’ in the market.
  2. The resolution of the competition authority, once it becomes final, shall have the force of res judicata.
  3. Summary proceedings shall apply.
    1. 4.     Full compensation for the harm sustained, including punitive damages.
    2. Joint and several liability, without detriment to any other recovery actions that may be applicable.
    3. In case of leniency program, a company that has obtained the exception shall only be liable when the plaintiff can prove that full compensation may not be obtained from the other infringing companies.
    4. The statute of limitations will be the following:
  • 3 years as from the time when the infringement was committed or the damaged party should have become aware of the violations; or
  • 2 years since the decision issued by the competition authority becomes final.

The Act does not provide anything for the possibility of filing class actions for damages. Nevertheless, our National Constitution recognizes rights of general public interest. Considering that, the Supreme Court of Argentina, through the precedents called “Halabi” and “PADEC”, has incorporated collective redress mechanisms into our legal system and has clarified the application of the constitutional rules.

Later, the Supreme Court has created the Public Register of Collective Process and approved a guideline, until Legislative Branch enacts a specific act. Until now, we have only certain bills submitted on the Congress.

On the other hand, Consumer Protection Law has also established special rules for collective process, such as: legal standing to sue in favor of consumer association, free proceeding and publicity of the sentences, among others.

These proceedings may be an important tool for the purpose of permitting the growth of damages actions for antitrust violations.

In fact, these general criteria has been upheld in Argentina under the decisions laid down in 2 cases called “Autogas” and “Unión de Usuarios y Consumidores”, which is a consumer protection association. These cases were the result of the anticompetitive behavior attributed to Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales S.A. (“YPF”) by means of a resolution passed in 1999.

YPF was punished for abuse of its position of dominance in the market of bulk supply of liquid petroleum gas in Argentina. The Antitrust Authority concluded that YPF had put in place a commercial policy tending to export the gas and prohibiting its repatriation under certain contract terms in order to keep domestic prices higher than export prices.

Even when the abuse was committed in the wholesale market, more specifically in the fractionation plants, local authorities understood that the damages had occurred in the following stage of the commercialization chain, i.e. in the final sale to consumers.

The conduct had taken place between 1993 and 1997. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals and then by the Argentine Supreme Court in 2002.

Ten years later, a Domestic Commercial Court resolves the first claim for damages initiated by Auto Gas S.A. (“Autogas”), a company created for the distribution of gas in Argentina. Autogas had claimed compensation for damages caused, basically, by abuse of dominant position and breach of contract. YPF filed its defense based on two main exemptions: status of limitations and passing-on defense. The judge admitted partially the complaint and ordered YPF to pay in favour of Autogas compensation in money.

The Judge considered that abuse of dominant position had been finally established by the Antitrust Authority. Also the judge has shed some light on the viability of the passing-on defense by resolving to sustain in part the defense filed by YPF. This judicial trial was terminated in 2018, before the Supreme Court.

In 2004, an association called Union de Usuarios y Consumidores submitted a claim on behalf of all final consumers (indirect purchasers) for the excess of the portion of the damage not granted to the direct purchaser.

The conditions in order to go ahead with a collective action had been met: a single fact which may damage rights of a group of people; common effects; and, individual suits should not be justified.

Also in this case, the Court of Appeals resolved that the abuse of dominant position had already been analyzed by the Antitrust Authority. Consequently, the court focused on the existence of damages and their estimation.

With regard to the enforcement of the judicial decision, the judge considered that it was impossible to identify each of the final consumers. As a consequence of that, the first instance court ordered YPF to transfer the amount of 98million argentine pesos, plus interests, to a domestic trust fund. Such amount would be used in the expansion of the natural gas infrastructure in lower class areas.

In December, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeals resolved the first claim for damages initiated by an association on behalf of final consumers. However, this decision is still subject to an appeal process before the Supreme Court.

Summing up, the judicial precedents and the recent developments in the Act allow us to understand that the general conditions have been established and, in our opinion, a more consistent development of the private enforcement system of competition law is expected.

From our point of view, both public and private enforcement are necessary in order to maintain and recover the integrity of the markets and to protect the general economic interest, which was identified with the concept of total market surplus.

Antitrust & Competition Law: Argentine Kintsugi 150 150 Pablo Trevisán

Antitrust & Competition Law: Argentine Kintsugi

IMG_5793

Today, Concurrences published a series of articles on «Antitrust and Developing and Emerging Economies», including Pablo Trevisán’s, Argentine Kintsugi. A summary of the article can be found in this brief video.

 

Competition Law: The New Value of the Mobile Unit is Published 150 150 admin

Competition Law: The New Value of the Mobile Unit is Published

In compliance with the provisions of the Argentine Competition Act No. 27,442 (LDC), through Resolution of the Secretary of Internal Trade No. 13/2020 -RESOL-2020-13-APN-SCI # MDP- (Resolution 13/20), published today in the Official Gazette, the new value of the Mobile Unit (UM) was announced.

Section 85 of the LDC defined the UM as a unit of account and established its initial value at twenty Argentine Pesos (AR$ 20). The same Section 85 establishes that the value of the UM will be updated automatically every year, using the variation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICAS Y CENSOS (i.e., the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS AND CENSUS, or INDEC for its Spanish acronym), a decentralized body of the MINISTRY OF ECONOMY.

The UM is used to define a series of values ​​established in various articles of the LDC. Mainly, the value of the UM is related to the determination of the thresholds for the notification of economic concentrations (eg., M&A transactions) before the competition authority (i.e., when they should be notified or when they would be exempted from doing so), notification or filing fees’ maximums and minimums that could be applied by said enforcement authority (which, up to the present date, has never been applied by the authority) and the amounts of the applicable fines under the LDC.

Resolution 13/20, considers that the variation between December 2018 and December 2019 of the CPI, general level, national total published by the INDEC has been 53.83%.

Consequently, applying said variation to the value of the UM that was in force for the year 2019 (which, up to date, was $ 26.40), it results that the value of the UM “for the year 2020 must be equal to forty pesos and sixty-one cents (AR$ 40.61).

Reforms to the Supply, Consumer Protection and Competition Acts 150 150 admin

Reforms to the Supply, Consumer Protection and Competition Acts

The purpose of this set of laws, as stated in the message sent to Congress at the time of submitting the Bill for consideration, is to avoid abuses and protect the general interest of the population by securing their basic or essential needs.

We will now outline some important elements of the new system.


SUPPLY ACT

Supply Act No. 20680 was originally enacted on July 20, 1974 and, notwithstanding enforcement thereof by the Argentine Executive (including, without limitation, the dispute with Shell, with farm owners and with laboratories – Resolution SC SC 90/2014), its constitutionality was contested by most legal scholars.

The grounds for the rejection of the enforcement of the Supply Act lied in two issues:

(a) The vesting of powers contained in the Supply Act constitutes a delegation of legislative authority upon the Argentine Executive and its instrumentalities. Since the Supply Act ultimately involves the regulation of the right to engage in any lawful business -guaranteed under Article 14 of the Argentine Constitution-, such regulation may only be valid through “laws regulating the exercise of such right”, i.e, such regulation may only occur through formal laws enacted by the Argentine Congress.

Taking into account that the delegation of legislative powers contained therein did not provide for a term for exercise thereof, such delegation was subject to the provisions of provisional Article 8 of the Argentine Constitution, whereby “any delegation of pre-existing legislative powers not providing for a specified term for exercise thereof shall be forfeited upon five years following the effective date of this provision, except for such delegations as expressly ratified by the Argentine Congress under a new law.”

The Argentine Congress ratified on a provisional basis several delegation laws, the last one being Law No. 26519, for a term of one year as from August 24, 2009. Thus, since there was no further legislative ratification, on August 24, 2010, the legislative delegation lapsed, as that contained in the Supply Act.

(b) The Supply Act was also contested under Executive Order No. 2284/91 on Economic Deregulation, as ratified by the Argentine Congress under Law No. 24307.

In this respect, Section 29 thereof provides that “the reinforcement of economic freedom, the deregulation and the creation of a real popular market economy has no sympathy for the existence of certain powers conferred upon the Argentine Executive by the so called Supply Act, which are incompatible with such principles and, in addition, introduce elements of legal insecurity” to suspend Subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Supply Act.

In fact, Executive Order No. 2284/91, as effective under the Argentine Legal Digest, approved by Law No. 26939, provides that the exercise of the powers granted by Law No. 20680 is suspended, which powers may only be reinstated, for the purpose of exercising any and all remedies contained therein, subject to a declaration of supply emergency by the Argentine Congress, whether at general, sectorial or regional level.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the powers granted under Section 2, Subsection (c), are excluded from the provisions of the preceding paragraph, in which case, the rules on procedures, remedies and statutes of limitations contained in such Law shall remain in full force and effect.

Hence, the Secretariat of Trade relied on the foregoing for the purpose of passing Resolution SC 90/2014, with a reference solely to Subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Supply Act, which mandated to roll back prices to May 7, 2014 and to suspend any increase for a term of 60 days.

The new regulation serves as a first step to solving the existing legal uncertainty and to ratifying full effectiveness of the Supply Act. If enforced, the defenses concerning its illegality or invalidity shall be difficult to sustain because it has been confirmed by the Argentine Congress.

Additionally, it introduces other issues that are outlined hereinbelow:

  1. The application of the regulation is extended to all economic activities (including recreational and non-profit activities) and to all economic processes related to goods and services at every stage of the economic activity. On the other hand, the previous wording limited the jurisdiction to “any purchase, sale, exchange and lease of personal property, works and services” satisfying, directly or indirectly, the common or ordinary needs of the population. In turn, economic players considered as small-sized or medium-sized companies are excluded.
  2. The powers contained in Sections 2 & 3 of the original bill are reinstated, and thus, the enforcement authority may:
  • Establish, for any stage of the economic process, profit margins, reference prices, price ceilings and floors, or any or all of the foregoing;
  • Lay down regulations governing marketing, brokerage, distribution and/or production;
  • Provide for the continuity in the production, industrialization, marketing, transportation, distribution or provision of services, as well as in the manufacturing of certain products, within such minimum levels as established by the enforcement authority, for the purposes of which, the enforcement authority shall take into account the usual volume of production, manufacturing, sales or provision of service and the productive capacity, financial position of the liable party and economic equation of the process or activity.
  • In such case, an evaluation shall be made to ascertain whether the continuity in the production, industrialization, marketing, transportation, distribution or provision of services, as well as in the manufacturing of certain products, is economically feasible; otherwise, the enforcement authority shall impose a reasonable and adequate compensation.
  • Request information about the sale prices of the goods or services produced and rendered, as well as about availability thereof for sale;
  • Demand the filing of all kinds of books, documents, mail, business records and any other element related to the management of the businesses; conduct technical experts’ examinations.
  • Confiscate, if necessary, all of the aforementioned elements, for a maximum term of thirty (30) business days;
  • Create the records and provide for the keeping of such special books as established;
  • Establish business licenses systems.
  • The penalties have a new ceiling of $10 million, which may be doubled in the event of a second offense.
  • Companies must first pay the penalty and then file an appeal before the Courts, if they wish to do so;
  • Imprisonment is removed as penalty for offenders;
  • The business may be closed down for a term of up to 90 days;
  • Any infringing goods and products may be confiscated;
  • Special disqualification for up to five (5) years for commerce and public offices;
  • Suspension for up to five (5) years in the Government’s registries of suppliers;
  • Loss of concessions, privileges, and special tax or credit programs.
  1. In the event it is estimated that, as a result of the foregoing, a financial loss is sustained, a partial or total review of the actions taken may be requested but doing so shall not excuse specific performance of the obligations so imposed, as long as no decision is made in connection with such petition, which resolution shall be rendered within fifteen (15) business days following such claim.
  2. The Governors of the Provinces and/or the Head of Government of the City of Buenos Aires, by themselves or through their designees, may set —within their respective jurisdictions— maximum prices and the relevant supplementary actions referred to above as long as the Argentine Executive does not do so.
  3. As regards penalties:
  • The penalties have a new ceiling of AR$10 million, which may be doubled in the event of a second offense.
  • Companies must first pay the penalty and then file an appeal before the Courts, if they wish to do so;
  • Imprisonment is removed as penalty for offenders;
  • The business may be closed down for a term of up to 90 days;
  • Any infringing goods and products may be confiscated;
  • Special disqualification for up to five (5) years to conduct business and hold public offices;
  • Suspension for up to five (5) years in the Government’s registries of suppliers;
  1. Loss of concessions, privileges, and special tax or credit programs. The application of penalties may be against companies and their officers involved in the commission of the infringing events, to the extent acting with willful misconduct or gross negligence (they all used to be deemed liable in the past, whether or not they had been involved).
  2. Section 14 provides that any confiscated goods may be sold, leased or shipped if perishable and/or supply thereof is insufficient, for the purposes of which no prior deposit or expropriation proceedings shall be required.
  3. No entity is appointed as enforcement authority; the Argentine Executive shall appoint one.
  4. A 3-year statute of limitations is set, the running of which shall be interrupted by the commission of new violations or the filing of administrative or legal actions.
  5. When faced by a shortage of goods or services that satisfy basic or essential needs related to the general welfare of the population, the enforcement authority may order, under a duly grounded resolution, their, sale, production, distribution or provision in the entire territory of the Republic of Argentina, irrespective of the owner thereof and, upon failure to fulfill such requirement, the relevant penalties shall be imposed. Such decision may last as long as required for remedying such shortage situation.
  6. The possibility to close down the business, as a preventive measure, for up to three (3) days during the inspection procedures is maintained. This decision may be extended to up to thirty (30) days, even though such extension requires prior court approval.
  7. The terms to assert defenses before the administrative authorities and to file a direct appeal against the resolutions imposing such penalties are extended, in both cases, from five (5) to ten (10) business days.
  8. The jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts of Original Jurisdiction is removed and jurisdiction is granted to the Federal Court of Appeals in Administrative Matters and to the Federal Courts of Appeals of the Argentine provinces, depending upon the location of the administrative authority involved, for reviewing the resolutions imposing penalties.
  9. As a requirement to appeal the imposition of a penalty, the amount of the fine must be previously deposited, unless such deposit may cause irreparable harm to the appellant. Thus, the possibility of replacing the amount of the fine with a bond or a security over the goodwill, as provided for under the previous Supply Act, is also removed.
  10. The Administrative Proceedings Act No. 19549 shall be subsidiarily applied, instead of the Code of Criminal Proceedings.


CONSUMER PROTECTION:

Significant changes are introduced with respect to the dispute resolution system on consumer protection matters, which will now consist of three stages:

1. Preliminary Settlement Service in Consumer Relations (“COPREC”, for its Spanish acronym)

The first stage of this proposal creates COPREC, which shall be involved in all individual right claims concerning consumer relations (resulting from the Consumer Protection Act) up to a maximum amount of 55 minimum salaries (currently, AR$ 198,000) and shall be the mandatory step prior to bringing a lawsuit before the Federal Courts in Consumer Relations -to be created-. COPREC shall depend upon the Secretariat of Trade, which shall be the enforcement authority and act at national level.

COPREC shall coexist with the consumer protection agencies of the City of Buenos Aires in the Management and Participation Centers.

The procedure shall be free of charge and shall serve to bring the parties closer to reach an agreement.

2. Audit in Consumer Relations

The procedure is commenced once the requirement in 1 above has been met without having reached an agreement or due to the reported company’s failure to appear. The parties may be represented by legal counsel and the consumer may be assisted by such representatives as specifically listed under the Consumer Protection Act.

This Auditor in Consumer Relations must be an attorney, pursuant to the requirements contained in the regulations in force, and shall participate in the dispute concerning the liability for the damages caused to the consumer as a result of the risk or defect of the item and for direct damages (Sections 40 & 40 bis of the Consumer Protection Act) for up to an amount equivalent to 15 minimum salaries (currently, AR$ 54,000).

This system shall depend upon the Argentine Ministry of Economy and Public Finance, which is an independent authority, and the procedure shall be of an administrative nature.

Upon receipt of the consumer’s claim, the parties shall be summoned to a hearing, where the evidence offered shall be produced. The Auditor shall verify, on an ex officio basis, the material truth of the facts in order to subsequently render a resolution within not more than 5 days following the hearing.

If the disputed facts are outside the Auditor’s scope of expertise due to their complexity, more comprehensive proceedings may be undertaken to decide the legal issue, with the possibility of bringing an action before the Federal Courts in Consumer Relations.

The resolution shall be subject to appeal, with representation by legal counsel, before the Federal Court of Appeals in Consumer Relations or before the appropriate Federal Court of Appeals in the Argentine provinces.

3. Federal Courts in Consumer Relations

A new venue is created that will have jurisdiction to hear cases related to consumer relations under the Consumer Protection Act and any other rule governing this type of relations. This venue shall have jurisdiction as long as the claim does not exceed an amount equivalent to 55 times a minimum salary. If such ceiling is exceeded, an action may be filed before the ordinary courts (lower courts in Civil or Commercial matters).

In this respect, eight courts of original jurisdiction and two divisions of a Court of Appeals in Consumer Relations are created, all of them located in Capital Federal.

The procedure may not exceed sixty days and shall observe the following procedural rules: (i) jointly with the complaint and answer to the complaint, all evidence shall be offered (there will be no written interrogatories and only three witness per party shall be admitted); (ii) no motions that must be previously decided, peremptory challenges or counterclaims may be filed; (iii) the terms to answer the complaint, file grounded appeals and answer the appellate brief shall be five days and all other terms shall be three days; (iv) the hearings shall be public and the judge will attempt to settle the case and, if no agreement is reached, all evidence shall be produced and a decision shall be rendered; (v) only such resolutions as granting or dismissing injunctive relief, and final court decisions, shall be appealable (as long as not exceeding five minimum salaries – currently, AR$ 18,000); and (vi) all payments to be made to the consumer shall be made by payment into court under the penalty of invalidity ab initio.

It should be noted that within this stage the judge may grant punitive damages disregarding the limit set for claims, i.e. 55 times the minimum salary.

If the amount of the penalty exceeds the five salaries minimum, the parties may appeal the decision before the Federal Court of Appeals in Consumer Relations.


ANTITRUST

The set of laws contained in Bill No. 1250 includes an amendment to Law No. 25156. The amendments in the field of Antitrust are solely related to behaviors, with business combinations remaining unchanged, except with respect to the courts having jurisdiction over appeals.

The major modifications are as follows:

  1. No Independent Court:

The Antitrust Court was intended to be an independent authority on the matter, as provided for under Law No. 25156. In practice, it was never created, which was described by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Argentina as a legal scandal. During the past few years, the duties of the Antitrust Court were fulfilled by the Argentine Competition Commission (CNDC, for its Spanish acronym) and the Secretariat of Trade, who ruled and decided, respectively, on all antitrust matters. Now, under the new law, the Secretary of Trade is officially replacing the Antitrust Court and undertaking the duties that had been assigned to the latter. CNDC will continue to exist as a technical body dependant upon the Secretariat of Trade.

  1. New venue designated for appeals:

Another important modification is the participation of the Federal Court in Consumer Relations in these matters. This new venue will be in charge of solving disputes arising in connection with consumer protection, fair trade and antitrust issues.

  1. Solve et repete:

The effect resulting from sustaining appeals is modified. Till now, Section 52 of Law No. 25156 provided that, in the event of a penalty, appeals were granted with staying effects. The new system provides that, in the event of a penalty, the appellant shall deposit the amount of the fine prior to filing the appeal and, upon failure to do so, the appeal will be dismissed, unless doing so may cause irreparable harm to the appellant.

  1. New applicable regulations

The new regulations provide that the criminal rules (the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Proceedings) shall be replaced by the Administrative Proceedings Act No. 19549, for any cases not provided by law.

Antitrust Policy: Pending Debate 150 150 Pablo Trevisán

Antitrust Policy: Pending Debate

President Cristina Kirchner introduced three bills before the Congress concerning consumer relations to establish a new conflict resolution system, create a Price Observatory and amend the Supply Law.  

Such bills were passed by several committees of the Senate and will be discussed this week by the full Senate House. In addition to the amendment of the Supply Law, such bills will introduce significant changes in competition issues. Here, we would like to focus on the major of such issues: the bill specifically designates the Secretary of Trade as its enforcement authority. 

Thus, the creation of the National Court for the Defense of Competition (the Tribunal Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia, the “TDC”) as set forth in the Antitrust Law of 1999 would never be carried out. That is, the enforcement authority would no longer be a court independent from the Executive Branch, made up of members appointed on the basis of credentials and holding office for a specific amount of time, but a centralized authority reporting to the Executive Branch. This would be a legal recourse to avoid the creation of the TDC, something that all government authorities have been doing since 1999.  

The proposed change opposes Supreme Court’s decisions, which ordered the Executive Branch on several occasions to create the TDC, and considered that such an omission is a “legal scandal” (competent Appellate Courts’ decisions were similar).

It should be reminded that the LDC established the National Commission for Defense of the Competition (the Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia) as a temporary authority. This temporary appointment turned into something permanent. 

Even when countries more developed than Argentina have authorities strongly dependent on the central administration (for instance, USA in certain aspects), the positive experience of other countries with more independent authorities (such as Chile) shows that this is not only possible but also desirable. 

Contrary to what the bills propose in this respect, we understand that under a system which guarantees independence from the Executive Branch (similar to the one proposed by the LDC), higher guarantees may be granted, particularly in countries like Argentina, with Governments featured by excessive intervention. We sustain this, even considering that there are mechanisms to protect strategic political interests which could also be implemented. 

Such major changes should be the consequence of a serious, ordered and deep debate in which the participation of academic, professional, consumer and business institutions should be encouraged. 

The debate to define which antitrust policy is necessary for Argentina is long pending. Regulations in this matter have been relatively appropriate. However, we lack a clear policy to enforce such a law with foreseeability and certainty.   

Let´s hope these bills allow the debate to finally take place, so that we may finally have not only a good law but also a serious and reliable antitrust policy. 

To read the full comment (in Spanish), click on the following link: Política en Defensa de la Competencia: un debate pendiente – por Pablo Trevisán

Getting the Deal Through – Mergers & Acquisitions 2014 150 150 admin

Getting the Deal Through – Mergers & Acquisitions 2014

GTDT National expert red

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Mergers & Acquisitions 2014, (published in May 2014; contributing editor: Alan M Klein, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP). For further information please visit www.GettingTheDealThrough.com

To access full content, please click on the following link:

2014 M&A – Argentina

Compensation for damages for infringement of antitrust laws 150 150 Pablo Trevisán

Compensation for damages for infringement of antitrust laws

Even though compensation for damages as a result of infringements of competition rules has only recently initiated its path in Argentina, there are sufficient factual and legal bases for such actions to grow.

The political and socio-economic realities of Argentina reflect a serious lack of institutionalism concerning antitrust matters and, in turn, there is a significant degree of misinformation on the matter, not only among consumers and firms but also within the legal profession as a whole (i.e., including both lawyers and judges).

Antitrust private enforcement rules provided for under Law No. 25,156 (“Antitrust Law”), by means of general rules of civil liability, supplement and reinforce the public enforcement in charge of the State by means of its law enforcement bodies. This sort of mixed system –as it happens in every jurisdiction with a consolidated system of competition law- provides more protection to the public and private interests and may become a useful tool for the protection of the rights of individuals and legal entities that may be affected by this type of infringements. In jurisdictions like Argentina, where the mentioned lack of institutionalism is so evident, the importance of private enforcement of competition rules is even more pronounced.

We believe that, if damages actions for antitrust violations are finally consolidated, we will be experimenting a new dimension of antitrust law in Argentina, which will undoubtedly result in new advantages, both for consumers and for firms equally, will provide more institutionalism and, more importantly, will contribute to furthering the protection of the general economic interest, which is the ultimate purpose of the Antitrust Law.

To read the full content, please click the following link: Compensation for damages for infringement of antitrust laws – Pablo Trevisán