Why do merging parties and authorities define relevant markets differently.

UKZN ResearchSpace

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Thomson, Elza.
dc.creator Genislav, Guy.
dc.date.accessioned 2011-02-01T11:39:02Z
dc.date.available 2003
dc.date.issued 2003
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10413/2422
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.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

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search UKZN ResearchSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account