DAEWOO and GM win case against them

This past November 4, 2003, the Free Competition Promotion and Protection Superintendency (Procompetencia), resolved upon the claim brought against Daewoo Motor de Venezuela, S.A., Daewoo Motor Corporation, Ltd. and General Motors Corporation, for their alleged economic concentration, concluding that, in light of the legal, factual and economic considerations pertaining to the matter, Daewoo Motor de Venezuela, S.A., and Daewoo Motor Corporation, LTD. had not engaged in exclusionary practices or economic concentration operations, nor had they abused a dominant position, which acts are punishable under the Free Competition Promotion and Protection Law.

In the case in point, the reasoning of the Procompetencia Superintendency, explained Alfonzo Paradisi, attorney for Daewoo Motors Corporation and Daewoo Motor Venezuela, is that the factual requirements pertaining to the aforementioned anti-competitive practices, established by Articles 6, 11 and 13.4 of the Procompetencia Law, had not been met.

In fact, the economic combination operation analyzed did not generate a considerable increase in the level of concentration of the respective relevant markets. Furthermore, the characteristics of the automobile markets make engaging in practices in restraint of free competition highly improbable. He went on to add that the existence of such a large number of companies at the marketplace makes it difficult to conceive that any one of them could hold a dominant position, upon the terms of Article 13 of the Procompetencia Law. Finally, the Procompetencia Superintendency, regarding the practice established in Article 6 of the Law, indicated that as no intent could be seen on the part of Daewoo Motor de Venezuela, S.A., it had not incurred in the practice established in this Article.

Daewoo Motor de Venezuela, S.A. and Daewoo Motor Corporation, LTD, were represented in these proceedings by Juan Domingo Alfonzo Paradisi, Managing Partner at TPA and Arghemar Perez Sanguinetti, an associate with the Economic Law department of the law offices of Torres Plaz y Araujo.

GM was represented by Steel Hector & Davis.