Comity

3.2 Comity

• The Competition policies taken by a country as to the desirable state of enforcement and differencカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法n the level of the penalty should be honored by other countries. In a case where a country's competition authority decides a conduct in question, as long as the competition laws of a country may be compatible with the U.S. antitrust laws in contents, regardless the result of enforcement of such competition laws of a country, the U.S. Agencies should refrain from the enforcement of its own antitrust laws to the matter.

• As to the two items added to the 6 factors of カジノ シークレット 出 金 方法mity analysis provided by the 1988 Guidelines; i.e.,
  • カジノ シークレット 出 金 方法ffect on foreign enforcement;
    
  • カジノ シークレット 出 金 方法ffectiveness of foreign enforcement,
    
  manipulation of these factors needs to be described morカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法n detail. If this meant to say the U.S. Agencies do not give comity to a foreign country when the U.S. Agencies consider the amount of penalty imposed by a foreign country in the course of the enforcement of its own antitrust laws is not sufficient, this would present a serious problem on international affairs and domestic orders.

• The following factors which the U.S. Court of Appeals has employed should be considered in performing a comity analysis.
  • "If relief is granted, whether a party will be placed in the position of being forced to perform an act illegal in either country or be under conflicting requirements by both countries;"

  • "Whether an order for relief would be acceptablカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法n this country if made by the foreign nation under similar circumstances;"

  • "Whether a treaty with the affected nations has addressed thカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法ssue."

• We are afraid that it is just the denial of international comity consideration by the U.S. Agencies, relying on Hartford Fire, to determine no conflicts exist for purposes of an international comity analysis in カジノ シークレット 出 金 方法urts if the person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.

• Hartford Firカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法s the only casカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法n which the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed its opinion on comity in relation with the extraterritorial enforcement of the U.S. antitrust laws, reversing the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Furthermore, this decision was narrowly delivered by the divided court with a strong dissenting opinion. Judging from these circumstances, case may not be considered as a persuasive leading case. Given the fact that there are many critical opinions by foreign jurists and commentators, especially from England, we do not think Hartford Fire does provide a sound basis to establish a theory for the extraterritorial enforcement of the U.S. antitrust laws. The Agencies need to analyze other foreign countries' opinion with an objective eye and reconsider giving international comity to another country when the person subjects to both countries' law at the same time.

Although the 1994 Guidelines state that the Agencies would consider, in EXAMPLカジノ シークレット 出 金 方法,

• "working cooperatively with the foreign authority" or
• "staying their own remedy pending enforcement efforts by the foreign country"