Chile’s National Economic Prosecutor (FNE) has asked its legally empowered counterpart, the TDLC, to press charges against several shipping and transport companies operating out of the Antofagasta harbor over their failure to live up to a series of conditions, meant to prevent excessive vertical integration between these “relevant users” of Antofagasta infrastructure. Antofagasta Terminal Internacional, Inversiones Punta de Rieles and SAAM Puertos are among the major companies involved.
The FNE is expected to request a $2.1 million dollar fine on the companies for failure to comply with the decisions of the Central Prevention Commission, which had limited these companies (shippers, loaders and dockworkers) from joining to control over 15% of the region’s tonnage, or over 25% of all tonnage moved while participating with under 40% ownership.
Both SAAM and Punta de Rieles are thought to have far surpassed the upper limits, making these companies ‘Relevant Actors’ and therefore liable to special restrictions. These companies are all somewhat related to the Luksic Group, a holding company for all three enterprises and their subsidiaries. The FNE’s restrictions had initially been set in order to prevent any single actors from dominating the local and vital Antofagasta shipping market.
Full Content: Diario Financiero
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