This presentation by Prof. Hwang LEE from the Korean University School of Law was made during the discussion on "Sanctions in Anti-trust cases" held at the 15th Global Forum on Competition on 2 December 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/competition-and-sanctions-in-antitrust-cases.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during the discussion on "Sanctions in Anti-trust cases" held at the 15th Global Forum on Competition on 2 December 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/competition-and-sanctions-in-antitrust-cases.htm
This presentation by Sean Ennis, Senior Economist, OECD Competition Division, was made during the discussion on " Cartels: The estimation of harm in public enforcement actions " held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
Courts play a central role in competition law by guaranteeing due process and applying substantive economic principles when reviewing competition authority decisions. There are two models of competition systems - bifurcated where courts make decisions on cases brought by authorities, and integrated where courts review authority decisions. Specialized courts may offer greater efficiency, uniformity and quality decisions due to expertise, but could risk detachment from the broader judiciary system. Key factors in court outcomes include reliable processes, transparency, judicial expertise and experience in competition and economics.
This presentation by Márcio Issao Nakane, Professor at the Economics Department, University of São Paulo, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Professor Spencer Weber Waller, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Russell Damtoft, Office of International Affairs, United States Federal Trade Commission, was made during the discussion on "Merger control in Latin America and the Caribbean ̶ Recent developments and trends" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Public interest considerations in merger control held at the 123rd meeting of the Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 14 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/public-interest-considerations-in-merger-control.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Commitment Decisions in Antitrust Cases held at the 125th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 17 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/commitment-decisions-in-antitrust-cases.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during the discussion on "Sanctions in Anti-trust cases" held at the 15th Global Forum on Competition on 2 December 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/competition-and-sanctions-in-antitrust-cases.htm
This presentation by Sean Ennis, Senior Economist, OECD Competition Division, was made during the discussion on " Cartels: The estimation of harm in public enforcement actions " held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
Courts play a central role in competition law by guaranteeing due process and applying substantive economic principles when reviewing competition authority decisions. There are two models of competition systems - bifurcated where courts make decisions on cases brought by authorities, and integrated where courts review authority decisions. Specialized courts may offer greater efficiency, uniformity and quality decisions due to expertise, but could risk detachment from the broader judiciary system. Key factors in court outcomes include reliable processes, transparency, judicial expertise and experience in competition and economics.
This presentation by Márcio Issao Nakane, Professor at the Economics Department, University of São Paulo, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Professor Spencer Weber Waller, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Russell Damtoft, Office of International Affairs, United States Federal Trade Commission, was made during the discussion on "Merger control in Latin America and the Caribbean ̶ Recent developments and trends" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Public interest considerations in merger control held at the 123rd meeting of the Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 14 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/public-interest-considerations-in-merger-control.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Commitment Decisions in Antitrust Cases held at the 125th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 17 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/commitment-decisions-in-antitrust-cases.htm
This presentation by Scott Hammond, Partner, Gibson Dunn, was made during the discussion “Challenges and co-ordination of leniency programmes” held at the 127th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 5 June 2018. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/2gt.
These slides by the OECD Competition Division introduce the OECD background note presented during the discussion on "Price discrimination" held during the 126th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 30 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/price-discrimination.htm
This presentation by Prof. Allan Fels from the University of Melbourn, Australia was made during the discussion on "Independence of competition authorities - from designs to practices" held at the 15th Global Forum on Competition on 1 December 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/independence-of-competition-authorities.htm
This presentation by Jocelyn Martel, Professor ESSEC, was made during the discussion “Barriers to exit” held at the 132nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 4 December 2019. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/bte.
This presentation by Donghwan SHON ( Presiding Judge of Goyang district court of Korea) was made during the discussion “Judicial perspectives on competition law” held at the 16th meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/jpcl.
This presentation by Müge Adalet McGowan, Senior Economist, Economics Department, OECD, was made during the discussion “Barriers to exit” held at the 132nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 4 December 2019. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/bte.
This presentation by José Maria Marín-Quemada, Chairman Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Spain, was made during the discussion on " Cartels: The estimation of harm in public enforcement actions " held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Miguel de la MANO, Executive Vice President of Compass Lexecon, was made during the discussion “Co-operation between Competition Agencies and Regulators in the Financial Sector: 10 years on from the Financial Crisis” held at the 64th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 4 December 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/284.
Barriers to exit are often not assessed in competition cases for three main reasons:
1) Merger regimes focus on the incremental impact of a merger on competition rather than existing barriers, which are taken as a given.
2) Article 101 and 102 cases compare scenarios with and without the agreement/behavior, where most barriers would be present in both.
3) Other cases usually frame barriers to exit as barriers to entry instead.
This presentation by Damien GERADIN, Founding partner, Edge Legal Thinking was made during the discussion on "Price discrimination" held during the 126th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 30 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/price-discrimination.htm
Presentation by Frédérique Six at the OECD Workshop on “Joint Learning for an OECD Trust Strategy” on 14 October 2013. Mr. Six discusses effective regulation, the trust triangle, compliance and a trust regime.
This presentation by Alison Jones - King's College London, was made during a roundtable discussion on Fidelity Rebates held at the 125th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 16 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/fidelity-rebates.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during the discussion “Algorithms and collusion” held at the 127th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 23 June 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/1-0.
This presentation by Manuel Sebastião, Member of the Board of Directors, Redes Energéticas Nacionais (Portugal), was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Barbara Rosenberg was prepared for a roundtable discussion on Criminalisation of cartels and bid rigging conspiracies at the 131st meeting of the OECD Working Party 3 on 9 June 2020. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/criminalisation-of-cartels-and-bid-rigging-conspiracies.htm
This presentation by Kusha Haraksingh Chairman of CARICOM, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Paula RIEDEL, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis International LLP was made during the roundtable discussion on agency decision-making in merger cases: from a prohibition decision to a conditional clearance held during the 124th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 29 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/agency-decision-making-in-merger-cases.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Disruptive innovations in legal services held at the 61st meeting of the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 13 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/disruptive-innovations-in-legal-services.htm
This presentation by David Lewis was made at the first session of the 2014 Global Forum on Competition (27-28 February) which focused on fighting corruption and promoting competition. Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum
This presentation by the John O. McGinnis, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law was made during a roundtable discussion on Disruptive innovations in legal services held at the 61st meeting of the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 13 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/disruptive-innovations-in-legal-services.htm
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently celebrated its second birthday. During its first two years of existence, the CFPB has shown itself to be an aggressive consumer-protection agency. It is particularly noteworthy because its broad jurisdictional mandate could impact virtually any business that makes a loan to any consumer. Consumer lenders need to be alert to the sweeping implications this agency will have for their future business activities.
This document summarizes a lecture on the general business environment for life assurance companies. It discusses how the economic, legal, regulatory, and professional environments can impact insurer expenses, risk levels, and opportunities. Specifically, it notes that inflation can influence expenses, developing or volatile economies present higher risks, and legal/regulatory changes may constrain product design or contract terms over long time periods.
This presentation by Scott Hammond, Partner, Gibson Dunn, was made during the discussion “Challenges and co-ordination of leniency programmes” held at the 127th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 5 June 2018. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/2gt.
These slides by the OECD Competition Division introduce the OECD background note presented during the discussion on "Price discrimination" held during the 126th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 30 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/price-discrimination.htm
This presentation by Prof. Allan Fels from the University of Melbourn, Australia was made during the discussion on "Independence of competition authorities - from designs to practices" held at the 15th Global Forum on Competition on 1 December 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum/independence-of-competition-authorities.htm
This presentation by Jocelyn Martel, Professor ESSEC, was made during the discussion “Barriers to exit” held at the 132nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 4 December 2019. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/bte.
This presentation by Donghwan SHON ( Presiding Judge of Goyang district court of Korea) was made during the discussion “Judicial perspectives on competition law” held at the 16th meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/jpcl.
This presentation by Müge Adalet McGowan, Senior Economist, Economics Department, OECD, was made during the discussion “Barriers to exit” held at the 132nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 4 December 2019. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/bte.
This presentation by José Maria Marín-Quemada, Chairman Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Spain, was made during the discussion on " Cartels: The estimation of harm in public enforcement actions " held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Miguel de la MANO, Executive Vice President of Compass Lexecon, was made during the discussion “Co-operation between Competition Agencies and Regulators in the Financial Sector: 10 years on from the Financial Crisis” held at the 64th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 4 December 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/284.
Barriers to exit are often not assessed in competition cases for three main reasons:
1) Merger regimes focus on the incremental impact of a merger on competition rather than existing barriers, which are taken as a given.
2) Article 101 and 102 cases compare scenarios with and without the agreement/behavior, where most barriers would be present in both.
3) Other cases usually frame barriers to exit as barriers to entry instead.
This presentation by Damien GERADIN, Founding partner, Edge Legal Thinking was made during the discussion on "Price discrimination" held during the 126th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 30 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/price-discrimination.htm
Presentation by Frédérique Six at the OECD Workshop on “Joint Learning for an OECD Trust Strategy” on 14 October 2013. Mr. Six discusses effective regulation, the trust triangle, compliance and a trust regime.
This presentation by Alison Jones - King's College London, was made during a roundtable discussion on Fidelity Rebates held at the 125th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 16 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/fidelity-rebates.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during the discussion “Algorithms and collusion” held at the 127th meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 23 June 2017. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/1-0.
This presentation by Manuel Sebastião, Member of the Board of Directors, Redes Energéticas Nacionais (Portugal), was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Barbara Rosenberg was prepared for a roundtable discussion on Criminalisation of cartels and bid rigging conspiracies at the 131st meeting of the OECD Working Party 3 on 9 June 2020. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/criminalisation-of-cartels-and-bid-rigging-conspiracies.htm
This presentation by Kusha Haraksingh Chairman of CARICOM, was made during the discussion on "Addressing competition challenges in financial markets" held at the 2017 Latin American and Caribbean Competition Forum (4-5 April 2017 – Managua, Nicaragua). More papers and presentations can be found at oe.cd/laccf.
This presentation by Paula RIEDEL, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis International LLP was made during the roundtable discussion on agency decision-making in merger cases: from a prohibition decision to a conditional clearance held during the 124th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement on 29 November 2016. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/agency-decision-making-in-merger-cases.htm
This presentation by the OECD Competition Division was made during a roundtable discussion on Disruptive innovations in legal services held at the 61st meeting of the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 13 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/disruptive-innovations-in-legal-services.htm
This presentation by David Lewis was made at the first session of the 2014 Global Forum on Competition (27-28 February) which focused on fighting corruption and promoting competition. Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum
This presentation by the John O. McGinnis, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law was made during a roundtable discussion on Disruptive innovations in legal services held at the 61st meeting of the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 13 June 2014. More papers, presentations and contributions from delegations on the topic can be found out at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/disruptive-innovations-in-legal-services.htm
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently celebrated its second birthday. During its first two years of existence, the CFPB has shown itself to be an aggressive consumer-protection agency. It is particularly noteworthy because its broad jurisdictional mandate could impact virtually any business that makes a loan to any consumer. Consumer lenders need to be alert to the sweeping implications this agency will have for their future business activities.
This document summarizes a lecture on the general business environment for life assurance companies. It discusses how the economic, legal, regulatory, and professional environments can impact insurer expenses, risk levels, and opportunities. Specifically, it notes that inflation can influence expenses, developing or volatile economies present higher risks, and legal/regulatory changes may constrain product design or contract terms over long time periods.
This presentation by Lucía Ojeda Cardenás (Partner, SAI Derecho & Economía) was made during a discussion on Remedies and commitments in abuse cases at the 21st meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 2 December 2022. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at https://oe.cd/rcac.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
CSR Feb 2015 Sills Egsgard LLP Bulletin Mark Sills
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards have evolved to encompass companies' economic, social, and environmental impacts. Non-compliance can result in reputational damage from consumer boycotts, loss of business opportunities as major clients require CSR standards be met, and security risks or social unrest from conflicts with local populations. Companies must implement adequate CSR risk management strategies including policy commitments and due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and address adverse impacts. Legal counsel has an important role in advising on compliance with international CSR standards and managing litigation and other risks.
LEGAL ETHICS – BEST PRACTICES 2022 - How to Avoid Malpractice & Disciplinary ...Financial Poise
This webinar presents basic practice pointers to avoid malpractice and disciplinary actions, and how to respond to claims of malpractice or unethical behavior if they arise. The panel also discusses the role that malpractice insurance plays in these situations and the ramifications of a malpractice judgment or disciplinary action. Model Rules addressed may include: those that govern the client-lawyer relationship (Rules 1.1 through 1.10; 1.13; and 1.16); those that that speak to transactions with persons other than clients (Rules 4.1 through 4.4); those that govern the responsibilities of managing and supervisory lawyers, subordinate lawyers, non-lawyer assistance, independence, unauthorized practice of law, and multijurisdictional practice (Rules 5.1 through 5.5); and those that govern communication, including advertising and solicitation of clients (Rules 7.1 through 7.5).
Part of the webinar series: LEGAL ETHICS – BEST PRACTICES 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
The document discusses the debate around taxing carried interest at ordinary income tax rates versus capital gains tax rates. Currently, carried interest is taxed as capital gains. Proponents of change argue this is unfair, as fund managers provide services, and their income should be taxed like other service providers at higher ordinary rates. However, opponents note that fund managers also take on investment risk like other investors. The document outlines the various perspectives in the debate and considers alternative proposals but does not take a definitive position.
In most jurisdictions, antitrust fines are based on affected commerce rather than on collusive profits, and in some others, caps on fines are introduced based on total firm sales rather than on affected commerce. We uncover a number of distortions that these policies generate, propose simple models to characterize their comparative static properties, and quantify them with simulations based on market data. We conclude by discussing the obvious need to depart from these distortive rules-of-thumb that appear to have the potential to substantially reduce social welfare.
The document summarizes five ways the SEC Enforcement Division has strengthened enforcement efforts and how these changes may affect individuals and companies. The SEC has established specialized investigative units focused on areas like market abuse, structured products, and foreign corrupt practices. It has also streamlined management, improved intake of tips and complaints, and begun using cooperation agreements to encourage cooperation from individuals and companies under investigation.
Property & Casualty: Deterring Claims Leakage in the Digital AgeCognizant
For property and casualty insurers, the persistent and vexing problem of claims leakage can be effectively curtailed by applying digital technology with cutting-edge clarity.
The SEC has increased its scrutiny of the private equity industry since 2012 when many firms were required to register under Dodd-Frank. The SEC is focusing on seven key areas: 1) ensuring robust compliance programs, 2) clarity in limited partnership agreements regarding fees and expenses, 3) oversight of "zombie" managers, 4) proper allocation of expenses in separate accounts, 5) disclosure of operating partner costs, 6) avoidance of improperly shifting general expenses to funds, and 7) transparency around all fees charged. Private equity firms can expect more regulatory actions and should proactively improve their compliance programs, policies and disclosures in these areas.
This presentation by Anna Pisarkiewicz (Research Fellow, EUI Centre for a Digital Society) was made during a discussion on Remedies and commitments in abuse cases at the 21st meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 2 December 2022. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at https://oe.cd/rcac.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
The Devastating Effects of Mismanaged Subsidiary Governance: How You Can Lear...Athennian
This webinar, hosted by Adrian Camara (Co-founder & CEO of Athennian) and Paul Sutton (Founder of LCN Legal), will dive into a causal analysis of corporate scandals and oversights that have led to severe financial and criminal penalties. Discover tangible ways to prevent the mismanagement of corporate data that befell companies like BlackRock & Holcim.
Having been an “early adopter” of the series LLC, we wanted to share some insights into where it is appropriate and (more to the point) inappropriate to use series organizations.
Our view is that the series company is a potentially complicated solution in search of a need that rarely exists.
Despite the apparent attractiveness of series organizations, on balance, there are usually more reasons to avoid them rather than to use them. This presentation will demonstrate a few.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission proposed studying antitrust offenses and penalties for bid-rigging, price-fixing, and market allocation agreements. This sparked debate over whether current antitrust sentencing guidelines optimally deter cartels. Comments from the American Antitrust Institute, Department of Justice, and Judge Ginsburg proposed reforms like increasing organizational fines or imposing harsher individual sanctions. However, broader questions remain over whether increased sanctions are the most effective use of resources to improve deterrence, when alternatives like public education may raise awareness of cartel harms.
2012 - TIA Tax Forum - Promoter penalty regime - How the ATO is applying it i...Bruce Collins
The document outlines the Australian Tax Office's (ATO) application of promoter penalty laws. It discusses how the ATO differentiates risk levels of tax intermediaries and applies different compliance approaches. Areas of focus for penalties include schemes exploiting deductions, employment arrangements, financial products, and mortgage structuring. The ATO encourages reporting potential tax avoidance schemes to protect the integrity of Australia's tax system.
2012 - TIA Tax Forum - Promoter penalty regime - How the ATO is applying it i...Bruce Collins
The document outlines the Australian Tax Office's (ATO) application of promoter penalty laws. It discusses how the ATO differentiates risk levels of tax intermediaries and applies various compliance approaches. Areas of focus for penalties include schemes exploiting deductions, employment arrangements, financial products, and mortgage structuring. The ATO encourages reporting potential tax avoidance schemes to protect the integrity of Australia's tax system.
The Attorney Scorecard: Accelerating the Foreclosure Process while Improving ...Cognizant
This document discusses implementing an attorney scorecard system to improve the mortgage foreclosure process. It notes that foreclosure is a lengthy and expensive legal process, and that introducing a scorecard can help servicers more closely monitor attorney performance, balance workloads, and improve compliance and efficiency. The scorecard would track key performance indicators and milestones to evaluate attorneys and identify areas for improvement. Implementing such a system faces challenges around integrating data from different systems and standardizing metrics, but could help speed up the foreclosure timeline and reduce costs.
The document summarizes key changes from the Department of Labor's (DOL) Final Conflict of Interest Ruling, which will radically change the mutual fund ecosystem. It discusses four major changes: 1) treating IRA rollover advice as fiduciary advice, 2) expanding the definition of fiduciary, 3) advocating for level fee compensation, and 4) allowing pre-dispute binding arbitration while preserving class actions. However, the document argues the DOL's arguments are flawed, focusing too much on fees rather than performance, and portraying advice models as villainous while dismissing the value of advice. The ruling will still significantly impact asset managers, accelerating trends toward lower costs, better performance, and more fiduciary advisory accounts
Alternative Finance Briefing Paper - Simon Deane-Johns 27 01 12Simon Deane-Johns
Submitted on 27 January 2012 to the UK Government's Red Tape Challenge on Disruptive Business Models (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/themehome/disruptive-business-model/) and the Taskforce on Non-bank Finance (http://www.bis.gov.uk/businessfinance). Related posts are here: http://sdj-thefineprint.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/submission-on-new-model-for-retail.html
Current Issues in Securities RegulationNow Dentons
Mark Evans, a partner in the FMC Toronto office, was invited to speak at the Second Annual Securities Symposium this month about current issues in the area of Securities Regulation.
Similar to Sanctions in Anti-trust cases – Prof. Hwang LEE – Korean University School of Law – November 2016 OECD discussion (20)
This presentation by Nathaniel Lane, Associate Professor in Economics at Oxford University, was made during the discussion “Pro-competitive Industrial Policy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/pcip.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “Pro-competitive Industrial Policy” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/pcip.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Juraj Čorba, Chair of OECD Working Party on Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIGO), was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Thibault Schrepel, Associate Professor of Law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam University, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Yong Lim, Professor of Economic Law at Seoul National University School of Law, was made during the discussion “Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition” held at the 143rd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 12 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/aicomp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by OECD, OECD Secretariat, was made during the discussion “Competition and Regulation in Professions and Occupations” held at the 77th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 10 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/crps.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Professor Alex Robson, Deputy Chair of Australia’s Productivity Commission, was made during the discussion “Competition and Regulation in Professions and Occupations” held at the 77th meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 10 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found at oe.cd/crps.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Morris Kleiner (University of Minnesota), was made during the discussion “Competition and Regulation in Professions and Occupations” held at the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation on 10 June 2024. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/crps.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation comprises highlights from the publication OECD Competition Trends 2024 published in Paris on 6 March 2024 during the OECD Competition Open Day. The full publication can be accessed at oe.cd/comp-trends.
This presentation by Cristina Camacho, Head of Cabinet and Head of International Relations, Portuguese Competition Authority, was made during the discussion “Use of Economic Evidence in Cartel Cases” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/egci.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by William E. Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy and Director, Competition Law Center, The George Washington University, was made during the discussion “Ex-post Assessment of Merger Remedies” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/eamr.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by John E. Kwoka, Neal F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of Economics, Northeastern University, was made during the discussion “Ex-post Assessment of Merger Remedies” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/eamr.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Amelia Fletcher CBE, Professor of Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, was made during the discussion “Ex-post Assessment of Merger Remedies” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/eamr.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by the OECD Secretariat was made during the discussion “Ex-post Assessment of Merger Remedies” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/eamr.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by John Davies, Member, UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, was made during the discussion “Use of Economic Evidence in Cartel Cases” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/egci.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Simon Roberts, Professor, Centre for Competition, Regulation and Economic Development, University of Johannesburg, was made during the discussion “Use of Economic Evidence in Cartel Cases” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 8 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/egci.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Serbia was made during the discussion “Alternatives to Leniency Programmes” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 7 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/atlp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Italy was made during the discussion “Alternatives to Leniency Programmes” held at the 22nd meeting of the OECD Global Forum on Competition on 7 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/atlp.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
This presentation by Daniel CRANE, Richard W. Pogue Professor of Law, University of Michigan, was made during the discussion “Out-of-Market Efficiencies in Competition Enforcement” held at the 141st meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 6 December 2023. More papers and presentations on the topic can be found out at oe.cd/omee.
This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
More from OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs (20)
XP 2024 presentation: A New Look to Leadershipsamililja
Presentation slides from XP2024 conference, Bolzano IT. The slides describe a new view to leadership and combines it with anthro-complexity (aka cynefin).
Collapsing Narratives: Exploring Non-Linearity • a micro report by Rosie WellsRosie Wells
Insight: In a landscape where traditional narrative structures are giving way to fragmented and non-linear forms of storytelling, there lies immense potential for creativity and exploration.
'Collapsing Narratives: Exploring Non-Linearity' is a micro report from Rosie Wells.
Rosie Wells is an Arts & Cultural Strategist uniquely positioned at the intersection of grassroots and mainstream storytelling.
Their work is focused on developing meaningful and lasting connections that can drive social change.
Please download this presentation to enjoy the hyperlinks!
This presentation, created by Syed Faiz ul Hassan, explores the profound influence of media on public perception and behavior. It delves into the evolution of media from oral traditions to modern digital and social media platforms. Key topics include the role of media in information propagation, socialization, crisis awareness, globalization, and education. The presentation also examines media influence through agenda setting, propaganda, and manipulative techniques used by advertisers and marketers. Furthermore, it highlights the impact of surveillance enabled by media technologies on personal behavior and preferences. Through this comprehensive overview, the presentation aims to shed light on how media shapes collective consciousness and public opinion.
Mastering the Concepts Tested in the Databricks Certified Data Engineer Assoc...SkillCertProExams
• For a full set of 760+ questions. Go to
https://skillcertpro.com/product/databricks-certified-data-engineer-associate-exam-questions/
• SkillCertPro offers detailed explanations to each question which helps to understand the concepts better.
• It is recommended to score above 85% in SkillCertPro exams before attempting a real exam.
• SkillCertPro updates exam questions every 2 weeks.
• You will get life time access and life time free updates
• SkillCertPro assures 100% pass guarantee in first attempt.
Carrer goals.pptx and their importance in real lifeartemacademy2
Career goals serve as a roadmap for individuals, guiding them toward achieving long-term professional aspirations and personal fulfillment. Establishing clear career goals enables professionals to focus their efforts on developing specific skills, gaining relevant experience, and making strategic decisions that align with their desired career trajectory. By setting both short-term and long-term objectives, individuals can systematically track their progress, make necessary adjustments, and stay motivated. Short-term goals often include acquiring new qualifications, mastering particular competencies, or securing a specific role, while long-term goals might encompass reaching executive positions, becoming industry experts, or launching entrepreneurial ventures.
Moreover, having well-defined career goals fosters a sense of purpose and direction, enhancing job satisfaction and overall productivity. It encourages continuous learning and adaptation, as professionals remain attuned to industry trends and evolving job market demands. Career goals also facilitate better time management and resource allocation, as individuals prioritize tasks and opportunities that advance their professional growth. In addition, articulating career goals can aid in networking and mentorship, as it allows individuals to communicate their aspirations clearly to potential mentors, colleagues, and employers, thereby opening doors to valuable guidance and support. Ultimately, career goals are integral to personal and professional development, driving individuals toward sustained success and fulfillment in their chosen fields.
Suzanne Lagerweij - Influence Without Power - Why Empathy is Your Best Friend...Suzanne Lagerweij
This is a workshop about communication and collaboration. We will experience how we can analyze the reasons for resistance to change (exercise 1) and practice how to improve our conversation style and be more in control and effective in the way we communicate (exercise 2).
This session will use Dave Gray’s Empathy Mapping, Argyris’ Ladder of Inference and The Four Rs from Agile Conversations (Squirrel and Fredrick).
Abstract:
Let’s talk about powerful conversations! We all know how to lead a constructive conversation, right? Then why is it so difficult to have those conversations with people at work, especially those in powerful positions that show resistance to change?
Learning to control and direct conversations takes understanding and practice.
We can combine our innate empathy with our analytical skills to gain a deeper understanding of complex situations at work. Join this session to learn how to prepare for difficult conversations and how to improve our agile conversations in order to be more influential without power. We will use Dave Gray’s Empathy Mapping, Argyris’ Ladder of Inference and The Four Rs from Agile Conversations (Squirrel and Fredrick).
In the session you will experience how preparing and reflecting on your conversation can help you be more influential at work. You will learn how to communicate more effectively with the people needed to achieve positive change. You will leave with a self-revised version of a difficult conversation and a practical model to use when you get back to work.
Come learn more on how to become a real influencer!
Sanctions in Anti-trust cases – Prof. Hwang LEE – Korean University School of Law – November 2016 OECD discussion
1. Hwang LEE
Professor
Korea University School of Law
Innovation, Competition & Regulation Law Center
Antitrust Fines in the Era of Globalization
15th OECD Global Forum on Competition
1~2 December 2016
2. Globalization raises issue of global coordination of antitrust fines b/c
the effects of international sanctions tend to spill over borders.
• Conversely, preventing any loopholes among jurisdictions
cannot be over-emphasized.
• Many authorities impose fines not only on hardcore cartels but
also unilateral conducts.
Fining guidelines should be sharpened and proper discretion of
competition authorities should be guaranteed.
• Judicial review plays a critical role to prevent excessive/wrong
fines and any arbitrary exercise of discretion.
To enhance deterrence by fines, fining system needs to gain support
from the public and victims should be compensated.
• Other issues including tax-deductibility, double punishment by
multiple authorities & indirect sales calls for global coordination.
1. Introduction
2
3. 2.1. Rationality Hypothesis and Discretion of Authorities
Competition authorities’ discretion should be guaranteed for optimal
deterrence by fines b/c rationality hypothesis which fining guidelines
rely on contains several drawbacks that may limit deterrence.
• Factors that should be considered in theory to limit excessive
fines may be difficult to assess in practice for evidentiary
reasons.
• It may be exacerbated by the problem of irrational undertakings.
Increasing pecuniary sanctions may not be the right answer and
further inquiry is required to enhance deterrence.
• Other kinds of sanctions, e.g. imprisonment, may be considered.
• Balance b/w specificity of guidelines and discretion of enforcers
should be made to make imperfect guidelines work effectively.
2. Specificity of Fining Guidelines
3
4. 2.2. Difficulties of Conceptualizing Fining Methodologies
Establishing fining guidelines is an extremely difficult job and no
competition authority in the world may be able to set an ideal
guideline that resolves all of the issues that may limit effectiveness
of the guidelines.
• E.g. suboptimal statutory cap (let’s assume 20% overcharge,
10% cap of total revenue) may be problematic because it affects
disproportionately to each of the specialized and diversified
firms.
It calls for a certain level of discretion on the part of authorities to
supplement insufficiency of guidelines.
2. Specificity of Fining Guidelines
4
5. 2.3. How detailed are Fining Guidelines?
Details of fining guidelines are different across jurisdictions.
• US and Canada provide fairly general provisions that give
significant discretion to authorities.
• Others (Northeast Asia) have detailed guidelines and their
rigidity does not allow much discretion to authorities.
• EU seems to take a middle ground.
Difference may be due to the different approaches to the
relationship b/w transparency and deterrence.
• Trust in the fining authorities, seriousness of enforcement,
voices of the business community, culture and history, etc.
Degree of detailedness of fining guidelines should vary to match
individual jurisdiction’s situation.
2. Specificity of Fining Guidelines
5
6. 2.4. Pros and Cons of Detailedness
Details in guidelines suggest both positive and/or negative effects.
Highly sophisticated fining guidelines make good economic sense
but doubt may be raised as to whether particular facts in an
individual case warrant such an application.
• Radical departures from the base fines for an appropriate
problem-solving may raise suspicion.
• This is where confidence in competition authorities, and to some
degree in the judiciary, comes into play.
There is a challenge in finding an optimal level of detail.
• Optimal level of detail varies depending on many factors.
• Certain level of discretion of authorities is essential to mitigate
the deficiencies of guidelines.
2. Specificity of Fining Guidelines
6
7. 3.1. Proportionality and Discretion of Authorities
While the main issue is under-deterrence particularly about hardcore
cartels, deterrence is not necessarily the sole purpose of enforcement.
• Other values should be considered, e.g. legitimate interests of
undertakings, procedural rights of defendants, preventing false
positives, etc.
• It contributes to enhancing deterrence by increasing actual
enforceability on a lasting basis.
Sanctions need to be balanced with the gravity of violations.
• The issue of excessive/wrong fines may not be serious about
hardcore cartels.
• Some sorts of unilateral conducts whose liability may not be
uncontroversial depending on jurisdictions, e.g. margin squeeze,
may require further efforts for legitimacy.
3. Developing Judicial Review
7
8. 3.1. Proportionality and Discretion of Authorities
Due process matters a lot and it relates to details of guidelines and
authorities’ discretion.
• In Korea, arguably, inefficient judicial review is caused by both
excessively complicated guidelines and strict judicial review that
watches closely if the authority abided by them.
EU courts also have unlimited jurisdiction to review whether the
fines are appropriate and, if necessary, even to adjust fines imposed
by the Commission.
• Judicial scrutiny made over facts, laws, procedures, discretion,
etc.
• Accurate, efficient, and impartial procedures will enhance
effective, legitimate enforcement, and deterrence.
3. Developing Judicial Review
8
9. 3.2. Proportionality and Diverse Sanctions
Factors to put on the scale should include all kinds of sanctions
applicable, i.e. fines, imprisonment, disqualification orders, etc.
• If one fails to consider them in totality, it may lead to
excessiveness with a prejudice to the actual enforceability.
One needs to take into account the different institutional settings in
each jurisdiction when assessing optimal volume of fines.
• E.g. in US, fines may be set less than in EU or Korea b/c the
success of private damages suit may justify different priority.
The sum of various sanctions in a jurisdiction may remain constant
in the boundary of proportionality.
• Conversely and more importantly, aggregate sanctions not
reaching to an optimal level will be ineffective.
3. Developing Judicial Review
9
10. 3.3. Judicial Review and Deterrence
For effective deterrence, fining guidelines need to be sufficiently
detailed and the judiciary should review whether it is properly
established and observed in practice.
• At the same time, certain discretion of authorities is necessary.
• An appropriate balance between the deterrence from
details/judicial review and discretion of authorities, two
seemingly conflicting principles, needs to be sought.
• Various factors including confidence on authorities will explain
the balancing point.
One needs to be reminded of the potential for under-enforcement
caused by the predominance of resources by large undertakings.
• More judicial review might mean more influence from big
undertakings rather than serving more justice.
3. Developing Judicial Review
10
11. 4.1. Rightful Beneficiary of Antitrust Fines
Most jurisdictions count antitrust fines in government revenue and it
can undermine the very raison d'être of antitrust fines.
• US seems to be an outlier in that courts must consider restitution
to victims of the violation when determining fines.
It would be unfair if the fining system denies victims the right to be
compensated based on concerns of duplicative payment or
disproportionality that may be caused by fines by authorities.
Treating antitrust fines as a source of treasury revenue may work to
discredit the motives of competition authorities.
• Like the common example of speeding tickets issued to make up
for local government’s deficit.
4. Beneficiary of Collected Fines
11
12. 4.2. Antitrust Fines and Private Damages
The avoidance of double payment b/w fines and damages may be
addressed differently between antitrust fines and private damages.
• In setting antitrust fines, damages payments might be a
mitigating factor.
• But the payment of antitrust fines will not justify a reduction in
the amount of damages.
• In theory, however, the principle of proportionality may lower
the amount of damages awarded as courts typically take into
account the overall effects of sanctions.
4. Beneficiary of Collected Fines
12
13. 4.3. Antitrust Fines to Mitigate Consumer Harm
To ensure the legitimacy of antitrust fines, genuine efforts should
continue to distribute monies collected as antitrust sanctions to the
victims of antitrust violations.
Authorities needs to devise measures to fill the gap between private
enforcement and public enforcement.
• E.g. assisting private claimants in lawsuits, filing amicus curiae
briefs in court, Parens patriae suits.
• Cy pres remedies often ordered by US courts may have some
relevance.
4. Beneficiary of Collected Fines
13
14. If pecuniary remedies become tax-deductible, the intended
deterrence effect is reduced by the corporate tax rate.
Rule of thumb is the dichotomy of punitive and compensatory
damages; the punitive portion should not be tax-deductible.
• But there is a grey area, e.g. whether compensation to victims or
reimbursement of legal fees (unlike bribery) are not against
public policy, so that tax deductibility may be justifiable.
Another issue is the tax-deductibility of fines or punitive damages
paid to foreign competition authorities or foreign plaintiffs.
• In 2015, the Korean National Tax Services announced that
settlement of treble damages claims in the US is not deductible.
• But in 2016, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance was known to
have issued a new interpretation that they are deductible.
• There is no settled law in Korea about this important issue.
5. Effective Fines and Tax-deductibility
14
15. The problem of over-deterrence by overlapping fines in multi-
jurisdictions is still a matter of theoretical possibility and not
empirically tested.
• Not all of the jurisdictions seriously enforce competition laws
and even many of hardcore cartels are not fairly detected and
sanctioned, leaving the issue of under-deterrence significant.
• However, several issues arise recently.
6.1. Indirect Sales
Concerns over double counting is likely to arise in the context of
calculating fines based on the sales which took place outside a
jurisdiction but indirectly affects the jurisdiction.
• Leading authorities took ambiguous approaches until recently.
• Efforts among authorities to cooperate for a consistency and
build best practice should be sought.
6. Problem of Double Punishment
15
16. 6.2. Double Fines
Most jurisdictions set a certain rate (e.g. 10% in EU) of global
turnover as a limit to fines for concerns of financial ability to pay, etc.
• This broad limitation may result in excessive fines when
multiple authorities sanction an identical violation.
This approach worked before to prevent any evasive conduct by
assigning turnover to a loophole jurisdictions.
• Today as most jurisdictions enforce competition laws, this
justification may not work perfectly.
A solution would be limiting the cap of fines to turnover within the
boundary of a jurisdiction, as is the case in Korea.
• A concern for global firms to slip through regulatory net better
be addressed by empowering ROW competition authorities.
6. Problem of Double Punishment
16
17. 6.3. How to Coordinate Antitrust Fines
A difficult topic about cooperation among authorities needs to be
addressed based on international comity.
• Concurrent jail terms enforced in the Marine Hose case is a good
example.
More substantive cooperation can be considered w/r/t antitrust fines.
• It is not uncommon for a competition authority to decide not to
find infringement or not to impose a cease-and-desist order when
remedies imposed by foreign competition authorities sufficiently
address the competition concern.
• More difficulty is expected in coordinating antitrust fines b/c ex
post distributional consequence.
6. Problem of Double Punishment
17
18. As more jurisdictions worldwide actively enforce competition laws
as a strategy to develop the economy, the success of enforcement
heavily depends on deterrence by antitrust fines.
Current design of fining guidelines adopts the rationality hypothesis
but this approach does not work perfectly in reality.
• Diverse measures should be considered to cure the shortcomings.
Need to enhance enforcement capabilities of competition authorities
so that findings of liability would increase coupled with imposing an
optimal sanctions across global jurisdictions.
Current Active cooperation over substantive measures should be
actively promoted.
• It will benefit not only the global community but also individual
regulators.
7. Conclusion
18