The Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) of El Salvador has ruled in favor of the Superintendence of Competition (SC) in three cases presented, respectively, by Operadora del Sur, (which operates the Walmart brand in El Salvador); by the former president of the National Association of Private Enterprises (ANEP), Jorge Daboub; and by the Gasolinas y Lubricantes (Gasolub) fuel company, along with the businessman Carlos Alberto Ramírez Valiente.
In the first case, the SC indicated that in January 2014 Operadora del Sur refused to provide information that had been requested for a study into the state of competition, and instead requested an extension. However, instead of providing the required information, the company filed an appeal against the financial superintendent of the SC, alleging a breach of the law.
The second appeal, lodged in October 2013 by the former president of ANEP, Jorge Daboub, against the superintendent of Competition, came over the refusal of the official to show make the industry group a “party” in the sanctioning process the regulator was carrying out against Alba Petróleos de El Salvador over the latter’s execution of a merger agreement without prior notification.
Finally, in the last case, the SC indicated that both Gasolub and Ramírez Valiente had refused to provide information that had been requested in the framework of the sanctioning process against Alba Petróleos, which led to fines of US$11,400 for each. The Supreme Court threw out all three appeals against the SC, confirming the legality of its decisions.
Full Content: El Economista
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh