Students should select one question from the attached list for each option for which they
are registered, unless otherwise stated. Where a question is divided into parts, students
should answer all parts unless otherwise directed. Students should note that there is no set
division of marks between different elements of a question, unless otherwise stated.
When preparing your essays, you should take note of all the instructions and guidance which
has been offered by the School, whether through the LLM Student Handbook, the Skills
Programme, or classes in individual options.
It is important that you read the instructions on the completion and submission of summative
assessments contained in the LLM Student Handbook (including rules on length and formatting)
and ensure that your submissions comply with these instructions. The latest version of the LLM
Student Handbook is available on the Law Postgraduate Community Page.
If you are experiencing difficulties that are affecting your ability to complete your assessments, please
contact either your personal tutor or the deputy senior tutor, Dr Scarlett McArdle, to see whether you
may able to obtain assistance through the Extenuating Circumstances Policy
Academic integrity is something that both the University and the School of Law take very
seriously. We are highly vigilant in detecting academic misconduct and we do not hesitate in
taking action against those who are suspected of committing it.
As such, all students should take the necessary steps to ensure that they familiarise themselves
with the University’s regulations relating to academic misconduct and ensure that they do not
commit academic misconduct.
Academic misconduct can take the following forms: Plagiarism, False Authorship, Collusion,
Misconduct in Examinations, Submission of False Extenuating Circumstances.
If you are considering seeking third party proofreading assistance, you must read the
University’s Policy on Proofreading and ensure that you comply with this policy. Obtaining
proofreading assistance that exceeds the scope of what is permissible under the Proofreading
Policy will constitute academic misconduct in the form of false authorship.
Definitions of the University’s understanding of these terms, as well as its policy on Academic
Misconduct can be found here. Further information and explanation of what each of these forms
of misconduct entail can be found in LLM Handbook and on the Skills Programme Moodle page.
All students are strongly advised to ensure that they have understood these
definitions of academic misconduct. The definition of academic misconduct applied
here at Nottingham may differ from what you may understand from your studies at
other institutions elsewhere in the UK and overseas. It is no excuse to say that you
did not understand academic misconduct as defined here at Nottingham or that you
did not intend to deliberately deceive the marker.
The Skills Programme runs a number of workshops throughout the year on referencing and
plagiarism, which students are expected to attend. If you have any concerns or questions
about academic misconduct or managing your workload, please get in contact with the Legal
LAWW4159 GLOBAL COMPETITION LAW AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
Answer ONE question
1. Mogene is a company which is a leading manufacturer of medical ultrasound equipment
globally and is based in the US. Mogene sells its product in the global market through its
regional distributors in the US, EU, and China. Mogene has entered minimum Retail Price
Maintenance (RPM) agreements with its US distributor Xero Ltd., EU distributor, Chico
Ltd, and Chinese distributor, Shino Ltd. In 2021, Mogene was aware that Xero, Chico and
Shino unilaterally offered clients discounts and broke their respective minimum RPM
agreements. Mogene sought damages from the distributors. In response, the distributors
filed complaints to the US Department of Justice (DoJ), the European Commission (EC)
and the Chinese State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR) because the RPM
agreements are price-fixing agreements and breached the US Sherman Act S1, Art. 101
TFEU and Art. 14 of the Antimonopoly Law (AML), respectively.
(i) Based on S1 of the US Sherman Act, Art.101 TFEU, the Chinese AML, relevant
secondary legislation, and case law, advise Mogene on the establishment of
jurisdiction under US, EU and Chinese competition law, the substantive
assessment of the RPM agreements and the potential regulatory outcomes in
the three jurisdictions.
(ii) Based on scholarly literature on vertical agreements in competition regulation,
critically assess the US, the EU, and Chinese regulatory outcomes in this
2. “The US, EU, and Chinese merger regulation regimes have focused on assessing the
effects on competition of proposed mergers. However, the remedies imposed by the US,
EU, and Chinese competition agencies in merger regulation can pose certain regulatory
risks for international business.”
3. In regulating competition in the digital economy, “Abusive Leveraging” (or “SelfPreferencing”) has gained prominence as a potential new theory of harm. With reference
to the European Union General Court’s judgment in Case T-612/17 Google and Alphabet
v Commission EU:T:2021:763, and to the EU’s proposed Digital Markets Act, critically
evaluate Abusive Leveraging (or Self-Preferencing) as a theory of harm, and examine
its relationship with other, established, abusive practices under the US and EU