English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113822/144841 (79%)
Visitors : 51818006      Online Users : 550
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/125658


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125658


    Title: 共同股權對於市場競爭之影響及競爭法上可能之應對
    Common Ownership: Its Impact on Market Competition and Possible Response of Competition Law
    Authors: 黃子容
    Huang, Tzu-Jung
    Contributors: 王立達
    Wang, Li-Dar
    黃子容
    Huang, Tzu-Jung
    Keywords: 競爭法
    公平交易法
    反托拉斯
    共同股權
    反競爭
    機構投資
    管制
    competition law
    Fair Trade Act
    antitrust
    common ownership
    anti-competition
    institutional investors
    regulatory
    Date: 2019
    Issue Date: 2019-09-05 16:20:16 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 「共同股權」係指同一相關市場水平競爭者之間存在一定比例的共同投資者，而這些投資者的交錯重疊持股恐將導致反競爭的效果。雖然早在1980年代初期，即有學者透過經濟學分析，推論出前述反競爭效果的假設。近年來，不論是經濟模式的推論，或是實證調查的研究皆陸續指出，在「共同股權」投資的情況下，將會造成市場產出（market output）減少以及價格提高的現象，並影響經營者的競爭動機。亦即，特定市場行業利潤最大化的好處會大於個別公司利潤最大化。所以共同股權股東的行為與集中投資者（即只持有該市場其中一間公司股票）不同，他們不會要求公司管理層積極競爭，甚至是以其影響力阻止競爭以提高整體行業利潤。
    本研究透過經濟學之角度、降低競爭動機之可能性及影響經營者決策之可能性，肯認「共同股權」對於市場之反競爭效果。雖然反對者認為前述「共同股權」的反競爭效果是建立在對於機構投資者角色的錯誤理解、研究數據未真實反映投資市場實況及欠缺因果關係來證明該影響。惟本文認為：（一）反對論點並未區分機構投資者之類型，恐因此忽略機構投資者亦可透過管理資產經理費獲利之情形；（二）MHHI指數係為計算因「共同股權」所生之市場力量，並發現傳統HHI指數無法真實反應市場現況；及（三）對實證研究立下過高門檻，應不足採。
    於確立「共同股權」對於市場之反競爭效果後，透過參酌相關學者文章及國外相關競爭法案例，本文針對當前市場競爭相關規範對於共同股權可能之應對提出四大思考面向：（一）將MHHI指數納入市場集中度之參考；（二）管制以整體產業獲利為計算基礎的薪酬結構；（三）以公平會為主要之監管機關；及（四）建立當然合法之「共同股權」類型。
    我國公平交易委員會雖然並未有相關懲處案例，但並未表示未來國內不會發生「共同股權」之爭議。本文之研究重點即在於了解「共同股權」之概念，與其在實務上所產生的問題及法律爭議，並研究我國是否有「共同股權」之情形，聚焦探討其所面臨之競爭法相關議題。希望藉此提出有關法規發展方向上的淺見，以期我國競爭法能在創新與監管中取得平衡。
    This study is intended to identify and address the issue of “common ownership” in the field of competition law. The point of controversy of “common ownership” is whether firms have an incentive to reduce market competition, when large investors own shares in several firms within the same horizontal market. In the early 1980s, such anti-competitive theory had been demonstrated through economic analysis, yet prompted little public concern. Until now, the theory has gained traction by the rise of passively managed index and exchange traded funds (hereinafter the “passive investors”). In fact, an increasing number of empirical researches have focused on the issue of “common ownership”. Studies find that the investment of common ownership would lead to decreasing market outputs, raising prices and affected motive of market competitors. The core of the aforementioned phenomenon is quite clear that firms maximize shareholder value, while passive investors as shareholders tend to maximize the profits of the whole industry.
    This study recognizes the anti-competitive effect of “common ownership” on the basis of economic analysis and the possibilities of decreasing the motive to compete and affecting the decision of company managers. Sceptics hold that the inference is established on biased recognition of institutional investors and research statistics which failed to reveal real invest market, and that the theory is lack of causation. This study nonetheless dissent on three grounds. First, the opposition has not categorized institutional investors, thereby neglecting the fact that institutional investors might benefit from manager fee. Second, MMHI is designed for estimating the market power from “common ownership” and revealing true market status. Third, the opposition has set a threshold too high for empirical analysis. Hence, the study is convinced that the anti-competitive effect of “common ownership” is an inevitable circumstance.
    This study further suggests four possible response of competition law. First, taking MHHI as the reference of market concentration. Second, regulating the compensation structure based on profits of the whole industry. Third, naming Fair Trade Commission as primary supervisory authority. Forth, establishing a per se legal category of “common ownership.”
    Fair Trade Commission has yet sanctioned cases related to “common ownership,” and that no authority is well-informed with such issue. Given that “common ownership” might latently undermine market competition, this study focuses on the concept of “common ownership,” the following developments and legal issues. Taking its complexity into consideration, we might not be surprise that “common ownership” is the Gordian Knot in the field of competition law. Future studies, both theoretical and empirical, are essential to establish the applicable law for “common ownership”, which will strike a balance between innovation of the industry and the role of competition law to secure the foundation of a free economy.
    Reference: 一、 中文文獻
    (一) 專書
    1. 公平交易委員會，認識公平交易法，增訂第17版，2017年8月。
    (二) 期刊論文
    1. 月旦法學教室編輯部，瓦斯聯合漲價！？──論公平交易法之聯合行為，月旦法學教室，第186卷（2018）。
    2. 王志誠，「產金分離」與「金金分離」之法制基礎及理念變遷，今日合庫，第44卷第11期（2018）。
    3. 何之邁、吳成物、林東昌、許淑幸、胡光宇、施錦村、洪德昌，公平交易法結合規範成效檢討，公平交易法施行十週年回顧與前瞻學術研討會論文集（公平交易委員會編，2002）。
    4. 李綱信，歐美競爭法之初步研析，經濟研究，第12期（2012）。
    5. 杜建衡、馬泰成，水平持股與市場競爭，公平交易季刊，第27卷第1期（2019）。
    6. 施錦村、馬泰成、單驥、劉姿汝，競爭法規範有關事業間交換敏感性資訊與聯合行為之研究，公平交易法季刊，第26卷第2期（2018）。
    7. 施耀欽，分派員工酬勞及董監事酬勞新解，證券服務月刊，第648期（2016）。
    8. 馬泰成，榨取性濫用之管制：政策理念與實務困境，公平交易季刊，第17卷第1期（2009）。
    9. 梁國源、陳尚賢，HHI與事業結合申請案，公平交易季刊，第8卷第1期（2000）。
    10. 梁國源、羅有聰，從競爭因素探討美國銀行業的併購法制與啟示，公平交易季刊，第9卷第3期（2001）。
    11. 莊春發，聯合行為規範的回顧與前瞻，公平交易法施行十週年回顧與前瞻學術研討會論文集（公平交易委員會編，2002）。
    12. 陳文生，國內油品市場結構與定價行為之研究，公平交易季刊，第20卷第2期（2012）。
    13. 陳志民、陳和全、葉志良、陳昭文、吳蕙如、曾俐穎，管制型產業行為在競爭法上抗辯之研究，公平交易委員會委託研究報告，編號：FTC-101-G01（2012）。
    14. 陳坤銘、溫偉任，寡占市場廠商價格跟隨行為規範之研究，公平交易季刊，第13卷第1期（2009）。
    15. 黃蓮瑛、呂書賢，價格追隨或聯合行為？－從公平會處分咖啡案談起，載：財經法律實務最前線（2015）。
    16. 蔡孟佳、鍾佳純，論聯合行為合意之證明—以間接證據之證明與操作為中心，公平交易季刊，第17卷第4期（2009）。
    17. 謝國廉，歐盟競爭法之架構與範圍：以反競爭協議與濫用獨占地位之規範為中心，歐盟法之基礎原則與實務發展（下）（蘇宏達、洪德欽、陳淳文編，2015）。
    18. 顏廷棟、馬泰成、林國斌，公平交易法對於企業集團事業之結合管制，公平交易季刊，第23卷第3期（2015）。
    19. 顏雅倫，反托拉斯法與證券法令的互動與衝突—從美國Credit Suisse案談起，公平交易季刊，第25卷第1期（2017）。
    (三) 其他參考資料（判決、行政決定、官方報告、網站資料）
    1. Alex Bryan，多樣性基金對競爭的影響（第1部分），網址：https://tw.morningstar.com/ap/news/ETF-教育中心/165483/多樣性基金對競爭的影響（第1部分）.aspx。
    2. Franz Jürgen Säcker, 德國與反托拉斯法之新發展，公平交易委員會電子報第五期，網址：http://www. ftc.gov.tw/upload/1030618-1-1.pdf。
    3. FTC法第五條執法原則聲明，Competition Blog，網址：http://competitionblo g.blogspot.com/2015/09/ ftc.html。
    4. 上海商業儲蓄銀行主要股東名單，民國106年度上海商業儲蓄銀行年報，網址：https://www.scsb.com.tw/content/about/src/2017.pdf。
    5. 中小企業基本知識，台灣綜合研究院，網址：http://www.tri.org.tw/ceo/。
    6. 中國信託金控普通股主要股東名單，網址：http://ir.ctbcholding.com/c/ shareholder_structure.php。
    7. 中華電信主要股東名單，網址：https://www.cht.com.tw/zh-tw/home/cht/about-cht /corporate-governance/ major-shareholders。
    8. 公平交易委員會，知識經濟時代公平交易法對競爭者間合作聯盟之規範，網址：https://www.ftc.gov.tw/upload/c578bfec-8959-45bd-b038-f89501bfafcb.pdf。
    9. 公平交易委員會，歐盟：歐體條約第101條（原第81條）及第102條（原第82條），網址：https://www.ftc.gov.tw/upload/fd300f84-4704-42aa-96ff-e051491b02b3.pdf
    10. 公平交易委員會第966次委員會議決議。
    11. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第093102號。
    12. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第094079號。
    13. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第099040號。
    14. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第100204號。
    15. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第101127號。
    16. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第103051號。
    17. 公平交易委員會處分書公處字第104027號。
    18. 公平交易委員會結合案件決定書公結字第 098002 號。
    19. 王立達，銀行要求電商提供信用卡收款賣家資訊有違法疑慮？，ETtoday新聞雲，網址：https://forum.ettoday.net/news/1318863#ixzz5xImwuhSn。
    20. 台泥，106年度年報及年報附冊，網址：https://www.taiwancement.com/tw/re port/annual/106年度年報及年報附冊.pdf。
    21. 台新金控股東結構，網址：https://www.taishinholdings.com.tw/Investors/Investor s_05_5.jsp。
    22. 台積電主要股東名單，tsmc資本及股份，網址：https://www.tsmc.com/ download/ir/annualReports/2014/chinese/c_4_1.html。
    23. 台灣大哥大主要股東名單，網址：https://corp.taiwanmobile.com/ investor-relatio ns/shareholder-information.html。
    24. 台灣投資人類別交易比重，Stock-ai投資級經濟使用指標指南，網址：https://stock-ai.com/grp-Pie-twStock。
    25. 永豐金控股東結構，網址：http://www.sinopac.com/stockInfo/2018100114275052 4000000000000886.html。
    26. 休曼法125年，Competition Blog，網址：http://competitionblog.blogspot.com/ 2015/07/125.html。
    27. 江怡瑾，卡特爾行為，科技網，網址：https://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/ dt/n/shwnws.asp?id=0000154285_lap30tm47u65yf6iai2vj。
    28. 江怡瑾，卡特爾行為，科技網，網址：https://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/dt/n/sh-wnws.asp?id=0000154285_lap30tm47u65yf6iai2vj。
    29. 何謂「聯合行為」，公平交易委員會網站，網址：https://www.ftc.gov.tw/ internet/main/doc/docDetail.aspx?uid=1207&docid=13170。
    30. 亞泥，106年度年報，網址：https://www.acc.com.tw/download/2016-07-14%200 6-47-32/2017/ae%20ae%20106a%20a%20a11.pdf。
    31. 金管會，成立宗旨，金管會官方網站，網址：https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home. jsp?id=19&parentpath=0,1,11。
    32. 金管會民國107年10月12日金管銀法字第10702736780號。
    33. 政府資料開放平台會公告上市公司持股逾10%之大股東名單，網址：https://data.gov.tw/dataset/18422。
    34. 星展銀行，投資理財新手入門4 – 第一次投資基金就上手，3分鐘搞懂基金理財，網址：https://www.dbs.com.tw/insights/post/invest-4-fund/index.html。
    35. 美國標普500指數，Stock-ai自由的全球總經百科，網址：https://stock-ai.com/dly-2-%5EGSPC.php。
    36. 豹投資，為什麼三大法人對於台股這麼有影響力？，網址：https://blog.above.t w/2018/08/28/為什麼三大法人對於台股這麼有影響力？/。
    37. 馬泰成主持，國內油品產業結構、廠商行為與競爭法規範，公平交易委員會95年度委託研究報告（2006）。
    38. 國泰金控主要股東名單，網址：http://www.ircloud.com/taiwan/2882/irweb site_c/share-holderstructure.php。
    39. 陳怡樺，顧立雄一聲令下 寶佳、台新金「金金分離」恐怕都有問題，信傳媒財經新聞，網址https://www.cmmedia.com.tw/home/articles/9859。
    40. 富邦金控大股東持股明細，網址：https://fubonebrokerdj.fbs.com.tw/z/zc/ zck/zck_2881. djhtm。
    41. 最高行政法院101年判字第1001號行政判決。
    42. 最高行政法院103年度判字第294號行政判決。
    43. 最高行政法院106年判字第690號行政判決。
    44. 最高行政法院98年度判字第523號判決。
    45. 最高行政法院98年度判字第524號判決。
    46. 最高法院103年判字第438號行政判決。
    47. 幣圖誌，這三種人決定股市漲跌一定要認識！，商業週刊，網址：https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/article.aspx?id=5917&type=Blog&utm_source=bwcom&utm_medium=recommend&utm_campaign=article&p=1。
    48. 綠角財經筆記，資產管理公司的營收成長，網址：http://greenhornfinancefoot note.blogspot.com/2011/07/earnings-growth-of-asset-management.html。
    49. 遠傳主要股東名單，網址：https://www.fetnet.net/corporate/web/Corporate/IR/20 19%20Top%2010%20shareholders%20_C.pdf。
    50. 聯合新聞網，讓你搞懂「產金分離」還是「金金分離」，遠見網站，網址：https://www.gvm.com.tw/ article.html?id=44326。
    51. 聯華電子股份有限公司主要股東名單，聯華電子股份有限公司民國106年度年報，網址：http://www.umc.com/chinese/pdf/2017AR_CHI_all.pdf。
     
    二、 外文文獻
    (一) 專書
    1. 2 ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY (Wayne Dale Collins, at el. eds. 2009).
    2. ALMĂȘAN, ADRIANA & PETER WHELAN, THE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF EU COMPETITION LAW (2017).
    3. BEBCHUK, LUCIAN & JESSE FRIED, PAY WITHOUT PERFORMANCE (2004).
    4. BIRKINSHAW, PATRICK, EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW (2003).
    5. CANOY, MARCEL & SANDER ONDERSTAL, TIGHT OLIGOPOLIES: IN SEARCH OF PROPORTIONATE REMEDIES (2003).
    6. CRANE, DANIEL A., ANTITRUST (2014).
    7. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR COMPETITION, GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN EU COMPETITION POLICY, available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/100e1bc8-cee3-4f65-9b30-e232-ec3064d6.
    8. JONES, ALISON & BRENDA SUFRIN, EU COMPETITION LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS (5th ed., 2014).
    9. NAZZINI, RENATO, THE FOUNDATIONS OF EUROPEAN UNION COMPETITION LAW (2011).
    10. SAGERS, CHRISTOPHER L., ANTITRUST (2nd, ed., 2014).
    11. SCHUMPETER, JOSEPH, CAPITALISIM, SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY (1942).
    12. THE 1992 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES : COMMENTARY AND TEXT (Michael L. Denger et al. eds., 1992).
    (二) 期刊論文
    1. Ayres, Ian & Edward Fox, Alpha Duties: The Search for Excess Returns and Appropriate Fiduciary Duties, 97 TEX. L. REV. 445 (2019).
    2. Azar, Jose ́, Martin C. Schmalz & Isabel Tecu, Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership, 73(4) J. FINANC 1513 (2018).
    3. Baker, Jonathan B. & Jonathan Sallet, Unlocking Antitrust Enforcement, 127 YALE L. J. 1916 (2018).
    4. Baker, Jonathan B., Overlapping Financial Investor Ownership, Market Power, and Antitrust Enforcement: My Qualified Agreement with Professor Elhauge, 129 HARV. L. REV. F. 212 (2016).
    5. Bary, Laurence, Common ownership – A practitioner’s view, 2 CONCURRENCES 228, 228 (2019).
    6. Carstensen, Peter C. & Robert H. Lande, The Merger Incipiency Doctrine and The Importance of “Redundant” Competitors, 2018 Wis. L. Rev. 781 (2018).
    7. D’Avella, Amy, Valueact Partners and Hart-Scott-Rodino Ending The Competition Between Investor and Antitrust Law, 8 AM. U. BUS. L. REV. 97 (2019).
    8. Depoortere, Frederic & Giorgio Motta, The Doctrine of Collective Dominance: All Together Forever?, 1 GCP: THE ANTITRUST CHRONICLE 1 (2009).
    9. Elhauge, Einer, Horizontal Shareholding, 129 HARV. L. REV. 1267 (2016).
    10. Elhauge, Einer, The Growing Problem of Horizontal Shareholding, 3 CPI ANTITRUST CHRONICLE 1 (2017).
    11. Enriques, Luca & Alessandro Romano, Institutional Investor Voting Behavior: A Network Theory Perspective, 2019 U. ILL. L. REV. 223 (2019).
    12. Ginsburg, Douglas H. & Keith Klovers, Common sense about common ownership, 2 CONCURRENCES REVIEW 86847 (2018).
    13. Hay, George A., Facilitating Practices: The Ethyl Case (1984), in THE ANTITRUST REVOLUTION 182 (John E. Kwoka, Jr., Lawrence J. White eds., 1989).
    14. Holstrom, Bengt, Moral Hazard in Teams, 13(2) BELL JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 324 (1982).
    15. Hsieh, Kuo-lien, Don’t Be a Software Giant in Europe!—A Critical Analysis of Microsoft v. Commission, 7 TECH. L. REV. 169.
    16. Jenter, Dirk & Fadi Kanaan, CEO Turnover and Relative Performance Evaluation, 70(5) J. FINANC 2155 (2015).
    17. Körber, Torsten, Common Errors Regarding Search Engine Regulation―And How to Avoid Them, 36 EUROPEAN COMPETITION L. REV. 239 (2015).
    18. Körber, Torsten, Common Errors Regarding Search Engine Regulation―And How to Avoid Them, 36 EUROPEAN COMPETITION L. REV. 239 (2015).
    19. Lipton, Ann M., Family Loyalty: Mutual Fund Voting and Fiduciary Obligation, 19 TRANSACTIONS: TENN. J. BUS. L. 175 (2017).
    20. Lund, Dorothy S., The Case Against Passive Shareholder Voting, 43 J. CORP. L. 493 (2018).
    21. Merrett, Alexandra, Understanding Market Power, in: COMPARATIVE COMPETITION LAW 109 (John Duns, Arlen Duke & Brendan Sweeney eds., 2015).
    22. Monti, G., The Scope of Collective Dominance under Article 82 EC, 38 CML REV 131 (2001).
    23. Morton, Fiona Scott & Herbert Hovenkamp, Horizontal Shareholding and Antitrust Policy, 127 YALE L.J. 2026 (2018).
    24. O`Brien, Daniel P. & Keith Waehrer, The Competitive Effects of Common Ownership: We Know Less Than We Think, 81 ANTITRUST L.J. 729 (2017).
    25. Pagano, Ed, Esq. et al, Senate Democrats Introduce ‘Better Deal’ Antitrust Enforcement Legislation, 25 No. 8 WESTLAW JOURNAL ANTITRUST 12 (2017).
    26. Posner, Eric A., Fiona Scott Morton & E. Glen Weyl, A Proposal to Limit the Anti-Competitive Power of Institutional Investors, 81(3) ANTITRUST L.J. 6 (2017).
    27. Posner, Eric A., Fiona Scott Morton & E. Glen Weyl, A Proposal to Limit the Anti-Competitive Power of Institutional Investors, 81(3) ANTITRUST L.J. 6 (2017).
    28. Rauterberg, Gabriel & Eric Talley, Contracting Out of the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Opportunity Waivers, 117 COLUM. L. REV. 1075 (2017).
    29. Rock, Edward B. & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Antitrust for Institutional Investors, NYU LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, NO. 17-23 (2017).
    30. Rock, Edward B. & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Defusing the Antitrust Threat to Institutional Investor Involvement in Corporate Governance, LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER SERIES WORKING PAPER, NO. 17-05 (2017).
    31. Ryan, Patrick S., European Competition Law, Joint Dominance, and the Wireless Oligopoly Problem, 11 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 353 (2005).
    32. Strampelli, Giovanni, Are Passive Index Funds Active Owners? Corporate Governance Consequences of Passive Investing, 55 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 803 (2018).
    33. Withers, Chris & Mark Jephcott, Where to Now for E.C. Oligopoly Control?, 22 EUR. COMPETITION. L. REV. 295 (2001).
    34. Yadav, Yesha, Too-Big-To-Fail Shareholders, 103 MINN. L. REV. 587 (2018).




    (三) 其他參考資料（判決、行政決定、官方報告、網站資料）
    1. Airtours v. Commission, Case T-342/99, 24, OJ C 191 (2002).
    2. Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98, ECR 2003 II-03275 (2003).
    3. Azar, José, Martin C. Schmalz, & Isabel Tecu, Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership, JOURNAL OF FINANCE (2018), available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi. 12698.
    4. Azar, José, Portfolio Diversification, Market Power, and the Theory of the Firm, SSRN (Aug. 23, 2017), available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=28 11221.
    5. Backus, Matthew, Christopher Conlon & Michael Sinkinson, The Common Ownership Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence (Jan. 2019), available at: https://www.brookings. edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ES_20190205_Common-Ownership.pdf.
    6. BlackRock, Common Ownership Data is Incorrect (Jan., 2019), available at: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/policy-spotlight-common -ownership-data-is-incorrect-january-2019.pdf.
    7. BlackRock, Re: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century – Hearing #8 (Jan. 15, 2019), available at: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/pub lication/ftc-hearing-8-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-011419.pdf.
    8. BlackRock, Remarks at OECD Discussion on Common Ownership by Institutional Investors (Dec. 6, 2017), available at: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/liter ature/publication/ barbara-novick-remarks-oecd-common-ownership-120617.pdf.
    9. Bona, Jarod, Classic Antitrust Cases: Leegin and Resale-Price Maintenance Agreements, the Antitrust Attorney Blog (Aug. 2, 2018), available at: https://www. theantitrustattorney.com/classic-antitrust-cases-leegin-resale-price-maintenance-agree ments/.
    10. Bradshaw, Ben & Katrina Robson, US Antitrust Agencies Continue to Focus on Common Ownership, O’Melveny (Feb. 22, 2019), available at: https://www.omm. com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/us-antitrust-agencies-focus-common-ow nership/.
    11. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993).
    12. California Dental Association v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999).
    13. Case COMP/M.7932, Dow/DuPont, Eur. Comm. dec. of 27.03.2017, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/compe tition/mergers/cases/decisions/m7932_13668_3.pdf
    14. Case COMP/M.8084, Bayer/Monsanto, Eur. Comm. dec. of 21.03.2018, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m8084_13335_3.pdf.
    15. Case IV/M.343, Société Générale de Belgique/Générale de Banque, OJ C225, 1993.
    16. Case M.1383, Exxon/Mobil, Eur. Comm. dec. of 29.09.1999, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m1383_en.pdf.
    17. Case M.2283, Schneider/Legrand, Eur. Comm. dec. of 30.01.2002, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m2283_20020130_1240_en.pdf.
    18. Case M.3330, RTL/M6, OJ C95, 2004.
    19. Case M.4336, MAN/Scania, OJ C100, 2007.
    20. Case M.8084, Bayer/Monsanto, Eur. Comm. dec. of 21.03.2018, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competi tion/mergers/cases/decisions/m8084_13335_3.pdf.
    21. Case M.8677, Siemens/Alstom, OJ C 270, 2018.
    22. Case T-201/04, Microsoft Crop. v. Commission, 2007 ECR II-3601.
    23. Case T-30/89, Hilti AG v. Commission, 1992 ECR II-1439.
    24. Case T-41/96, Bayer Ag v. Commission, 2000 E.C.R. II-3387.
    25. Commission Decision 92/553, O.J. (L 356).
    26. Commission Decision of 26 XI 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, Cases COMP/39.388-German Electricity Wholesale Market & COMP/39.389- German Electricity Balancing Market.
    27. Communication from the Commission—Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, OJC 45 (2009).
    28. Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P, 4 C.M.L.R. 1076 (2000).
    29. Company Information of Shareholders of Apple, MarketScreener, available at: https://www.marketscr eener.com/APPLE-4849/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    30. Company Information of Shareholders of Bank of America, MarketScreener, available at: https://ww w.marketscreener.com/ BANK-OF-AMERICA-11751/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    31. Company Information of Shareholders of Citigroup, MarketScreener, available at: https://ww w.marketscreener.com/CITI GROUP-INC-4818/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    32. Company Information of Shareholders of CVS Health, MarketScreener, available at: https://www.ma rketscreener.com/CVS-HEALTH-CORPORATION-12230/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    33. Company Information of Shareholders of JPMorgan Chase, MarketScreener, available at: https://ww w.marketscreener.com/ JPMORGAN-CHASE-4831/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    34. Company Information of Shareholders of Microsoft, MarketScreener, available at: https://www.marketscreener.com/MICROSOFT-CORPORATION-4835/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    35. Company Information of Shareholders of Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA), MarketScreener, available at: https://www.mar ketscreener.com/WALGREENS-BOOTS-ALLIANCE-19356230 /company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    36. Company Information of Shareholders of Wells Fargo, MarketScreener, available at: https://ww w.marketscreener.com/WELLS-FARGO-14861/company/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    37. Council of Institutional Investors, Re: FTC Hearing #8: Competition and Consumer Protection: Holdings of Non-Controlling Ownership Interests in Competing Companies (Dec. 6, 2018), available at: https://www.cii.org/files/issues_and_advo cacy/correspondence/2018/20181205CII%20letter%20to%20FTC%20on%20common%20ownership%20v4.pdf.
    38. CPI, FTC Hearing #8: Common Ownership, CPI (Jan. 2, 2019), available at: https://www.competition policyinternational.com/ ftc-hearing-8-common-ownership/.
    39. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Obtains Record Fine and Injunctive Relief Against Activist Investor for Violating Premerger Notification Requirements, the United States Department of Justice (Jul. 12, 2016), available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-obtains-record-fine-and-injunctive-relief-against-activist-investor.
    40. Elhauge, Einer, New Evidence, Proofs and Legal Theories on Horizontal Shareholding, SSRN (Jan. 4, 2018), available at: https://lwp.law.harvard.edu/files/lwp/files/web page_materials_papers_ elhauge_june_13_2018.pdf.
    41. Ethyl Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 729 F.2d 128 (1984).
    42. European Commission, Anti-competitive Agreements, European Commission, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/con-sumers/agreements_en.html (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    43. European Commission, Cartels Overview, European Commission, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competi tion/cartels/overview/ index_en.html (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    44. European Commission, Mergers: Commission Clears Acquisition of Parts of Bayer`s Crop Science Business by BASF, Subject to Conditions, European Commission Press Release Database (Apr. 30, 2018), available at: http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3622_en.htm.
    45. European Commission, Mergers: Commission Clears Merger Between Dow and Dupont, Subject to Conditions, European Commission Press Release Database (Mar. 27, 2017), available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-772_en.htm.
    46. European Commission, Mergers: Commission Prohibits Siemens` Proposed Acquisition of Alstom, European Commission Press Release Database (Feb. 6, 2019), available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-881_en.htm.
    47. European Parliament, Answer Given by Ms. Vestager on Behalf of the Commission, European Parliament (Mar. 31, 2017), available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ doceo/document/P-8-2017-001097-AS W_EN.html.
    48. European Parliament, Parliamentary Questions: Anti-Competitive Effects of Common Ownership by Large Institutional Investors, P-001097/2017, European Parliament (Feb. 17, 2017), available at: http://www. europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2017-001097_EN.html.
    49. European Parliament, Resolution of April 19, 2018 on the Annual Report on Competition Policy, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0187_EN.html (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    50. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683 (1948).
    51. Fox, Brooke & Robin Wigglesworth, Common Ownership of Shares Faces Regulatory Scrutiny, Financial Times (Jan. 22, 2019), available at: https://www.ft.com/content/ 59325462-fe57-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521.
    52. Gencor Ltd. v. Commission, Case T-102/96, 1999 ECR II-753 (1999).
    53. Gramlich, Jacob & Serafin Grundl, Testing for Competitive Effects of Common Ownership, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-029, WASHINGTON: BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (Feb. 19, 2017), available at: https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.029.
    54. Guidelines on the Assessment of Horizontal Mergers Under the Council Regulation on the Control of Concentrations Between Undertakings, OJ C 31, 15 (2004).
    55. Harbord, David, The Airtours Case: Collective Dominance and Implicit Collusion in European Merger Analysis, available at: http://marketanalysis.co.uk/PDF/Topical/ airtourscase.pdf (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    56. Harty, Ronan P. & Mary K. Marks, Merger Control, Getting the Deal Through (Aug., 2018), available at: https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/20/jurisdiction/23/merger-con trol-united-states/.
    57. Holmes, Frank, These are the 7 Biggest US Airlines, Business Insider (Apr. 6, 2016), available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-7-biggest-us-airlines-20 16-4.
    58. Institutional Investor, The Euro 100, Institutional Investor, available at: https://www. institutionalinvestor.com/ research/7601/the-euro-100 (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    59. International Money Fund, GDP Current Prices, IMF DataMapper, available at: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/EU (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    60. Irish Sugar v. Commission, Case T-228/97, OJ C 366, 26 (1999).
    61. Israel, Marc, Renewed Focus on Common Ownership, White & Case (May 18, 2018), available at: https://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/renewed-focus-comm on-ownership.
    62. Kuhn, Tilman & Cristina Caroppo, 5 Things You Need to Know about the Debate: Whether “Common Ownership” of Competitors by Institutional Investors Raises Antitrust Concerns, KNect365 Law (Mar. 15, 2019), available at: https://knect365. com/complaw-blog/article/1bad11c7-133e-419a-87c7-76f33bc9a98d/5-things-you-ne ed-to-know-about-the-debate-whether-common-ownership-of-competitors-by-institut ional-investors-raises-anti trust-concerns.
    63. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007).
    64. Micheletti, Francesca, Belgian Agency Head Flags Cross-Board Membership as Priority in Common Shareholdings, PaRR (Oct. 15, 2018), available at: https://app.parrglobal. com/intelligence/view/prime2721086?src_alert_id=80325.
    65. Monopolies Commission (Monopolkommission), Excerpt from Chapter III of the Twenty-First Biennial Report of the Monopolies Commission (2016) on the Topic: Competitive Significance of Institutional Investors’ Minority Shareholdings, available at: https://www.monopolkommission.de/images/HG21/Main_Report_XXI_Institution al_investors.pdf (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    66. Municipality of Almelo and Others v. Energiebedrijf IJsselmij NV, Case C-393/92, ECR I-1477 (1994).
    67. OECD, Common Ownership by Institutional Investors and Its Impact on Competition, OECD (Dec. 6, 2017), available at: http://www.oecd.org/competition/ common-ownership-and-its-impact-on-competition.htm.
    68. OECD, Common Ownership by Institutional Investors and its Impact on Competition Background Note by the Secretariat (Nov. 29, 2017), available at: https://one.o ecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2017) 10/en/pdf.
    69. OECD, Common Ownership by Institutional Investors and Its Impact on Competition – Note by the United Kingdom (Nov. 23, 2017), available at: https://one.oe cd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD (2017)92/en/pdf.
    70. OECD, Facilitating Practices in Oligopolies, available at: https://www.oecd.org/daf/ competition/41472165.pdf (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    71. OECD, OECD Institutional Investors Statistics 2018, OECD Publishing (Sept. 27, 2018), available at: https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-institutional-investors-statistics-2225207x.htm.
    72. OECD, U.S. Note to OECD Hearing on “Common Ownership by institutional investors and its impact on Competition”, OECD (Dec. 6, 2017), available at: https://one.oecd.org/do cument/DAF/COMP/ WD(2017)86/en/pdf.
    73. OECD, Unilateral Disclosure of Information with Anticompetitive Effects, available at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Unilateraldisclosureofinformation2012.pdf (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    74. Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 556 U.S. 178 (2009).
    75. Roberts, David C., The Special Situation of “Passive” Shareholders, Norris Mclaughlin P.A. Attorneys at Law (May 19, 2009), available at: https://norrismclaugh lin.com/sdnj/2009/05/19/the-special-situation-of-passive-share holders/.
    76. Schmalz, Martin C., Martin Schmalz: How Passive Funds Prevent Competition, Eric Posner’s Blog (May 18, 2015), available at: http://ericposner.com/martin-schmalz-how-passive-funds-prevent-competition/.
    77. SDX, What is the SDX™ Protocol?, SDX™, available at: http://www.sdxprotocol. com/what-is-the-sdx-protocol/ (last visited: Jun. 10, 2019).
    78. Società Italiana Vetro Spa v. Commission, Joined Cases T-68/89, T-77/89 & T-78/89, ECR II-1403 (1992).
    79. Tobin, Sam & Francesca Micheletti, EC Scrutiny of Common Ownership Could Lead to ‘Fundamental’ Changes in Merger Review, PaRR (Oct. 24, 2017), available at: https://app.parrglobal.com/intelligence/ view/prime-2524421.
    80. Todd v. Exxon Corporation, 275 F.3d 191 (2001).
    81. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).
    82. Vanguard, Passive Investors, Not Passive Owners, Vanguard (Jun. 20, 2013), available at: https://global.vanguard.com/portal/site/institutional/ch/en/articles/research-and-co mmentary/top-ical-insights/passive-investors-passive-owners-tlor.
    83. Vanguard, Text on a Letter Sent by F. William McNabb III, Vanguard’s Chairman and CEO, to the Independent Leaders of the Boards of Directors of the Vanguard Funds’ Largest Portfolio Holdings (Feb. 27, 2015), available at: https://about.vanguard.com/ investment-stewardship/CEO_Let ter_03_02_ext.pdf.
    84. Wilson, Thomas, Common Ownership – Where Do We Stand?, Kluwer Competition Law Blog (Apr. 15, 2019), available at: http://competitionlawblog.kluwercompeti tionlaw.com/2019/04/15/common-ownership-where-do-we-stand/.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    104651013
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104651013
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201901107
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    101301.pdf3260KbAdobe PDF20View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback