The failing firm doctrine in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The financial and economic crisis has put businesses all over the world in danger of going out of business leading to the biggest industry restructuring in decades. measures may not be sufficient to ensure a firm's survival and competitiveness. Mergers and acquisitions can be one of the options at the disposal of the distressed firm. The failing firm doctrine or defence allows failing firms to merge or be acquired by a profitable firm in a transaction that would normally be regarded as anti-competitive in a merger review. The legislative framework that incorporates and applies the failing firm doctrine in South Africa is set out in section 12A(2)(g) of the Competition Act. It lists the failing firm doctrine as one of the factors to be considered when determining whether a merger will result in the substantial prevention or lessening of competition. Under the failing firm defence in South Africa, a merger that would be prohibited due to its anti- competitive effect could be permitted if the alleged failing firm (a) is unable to meet its financial obligations, (b) there is no other offer from a firm that would result in less anti- competitive effects, and (c) its assets would exit the market in the absence of the merger. This dissertation considered the failing firm doctrine in respect of merger evaluation and discussed the objectives set out in the Competition Act 89 of 1998. It has evaluated how the failing firm doctrine is formulated in South Africa aligns with the interpretation and application thereof in foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America, the European Union, and Canada. It has taken into consideration a variety of case law and secondary sources to explore first, how the defence is approached and applied, and second, whether it is necessary to reconsider the defence in light of the pandemic. Furthermore, while the defence in general is taken into consideration, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of the defence's role in accomplishing goals in achieving public interest objectives. This dissertation argued that the substantive assessment test in section 12A of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 is capable of preserving a competitive market structure by treating the doctrine as a factor, that the flexible approach that competition authorities currently take, is capable of taking into consideration any economic crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".