Precedents. SUPPLY AGREEMENTS As explained by Commissioner ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, the economic agents are those who will preliminarily review the classification of a possible supply/distribution agreement under the assumptions set forth in Art. 54. Based on said assumption, the review of ▇▇▇▇'▇ precedents in light of Law 8,884/94 is of vital importance. First, it is worth mentioning the opinion of former Commissioner ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ in Merger filing No. 08012.011058/2005-74 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇/Holcim case). The case referred to a supply agreement that, according to the case handler, did not fall under the classification established by Law 8,884/94 in Art. 54, paragraph three, as it did not result in economic concentration, transfer of assets or change in the corporate control of companies or relevant assets from a competition standpoint. The case neither fell under the description of the opening paragraph of final distribution of the product or service”. Under such perspective, vertical agreements assume a variety of types, which may be grouped according to the similarity of their economic function, namely, enabling production flow (distribution agreements) or the provision of goods or services (supply agreements). The difference between distribution and supply agreements lies in the emphasis of the obligations established and the characteristics of the products sold ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (supra note 15, at 24). Technically speaking, Forgioni noted that the distribution agreements refer to a category to which commercial concession (or distribution agreement stricto sensu), franchising, commercial representation, market allocation, etc., belong.
Appears in 2 contracts
Sources: Associative Agreements, Associative Agreements