Why do merging parties and authorities define relevant markets differently.
| dc.contributor.advisor | Thomson, Elza. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Genislav, Guy. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-02-01T11:39:02Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2003 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2003 | |
| dc.description | Thesis (MBA)-University of Natal, 2003. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The increased activities within the mergers and acquisitions market in recent times has highlighted the importance of Commissions, whose responsibility it is to protect competition in the common market place. An area of disagreement which often arises between merging parties and authorities - at the expense of time and money - is the definition of a relevant market within which to measure competition. This proposal seeks, with the aid of a recent case (Unilever vs. Competition Commission of South Africa), to identify why relevant markets are so incoherently drawn and whether guidelines mutually agreed upon between the merging parties and the Commission could aid in reaching a timely and cost effective resolution. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10413/2422 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.subject | Consolidation and merger corporations. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Theses--Business administration. | en_US |
| dc.title | Why do merging parties and authorities define relevant markets differently. | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |