A corp may be at risk of having difficulty in complying with its part of a PPP due to ,say, the EC’s impasse on State Aid clearance. The COCOO could help by working in tandem with EP Members to gain support for successful PPP completion. It would emphasise the strategic EU dimension and the PPP’s contribution to competition and regional development, including jobs, tourism and investment

A public organisation might benefit from receiving a USP (unsolicited proposal] for the facilitation of direct negotiations, to enter a contract or a PPP, under which the COCOO, or a different supplier, will provide strategic advice and mediation services to the public organisation.

For instance, the COCOO will vigourously defend, before the SOSBT and the CMA, its constitutional duty (to promote competition, investment and the public interest), when it is at risk by a proposed merger, so that it should be blocked, or cleared

Alternatively, the COCOO could propose (via USP), or could be hired, to help prepare a merger or acquisition deal, and to guide it through the whole process, while ensuring the political backing of government and of the competition authority

The COCOO aims to work more closely with competition authorities, regulators and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (SOSBT), to regularly update them with relevant political and legal information and expert opinions on relevant markets, sectors and industries. The COCOO’s cross-border investigations combine local, industry and technical expertise, covering every sector. It delivers diversified opinions and solutions to address complex demands related to buy- and sell-side M&A, restructuring, claims and comprehensive due diligence. The COCOO’s thorough understanding of the industry and of every facet of the deal lifecycle bring certainty to the management of transaction risk, create long-term value and allow for timely, smarter decisions. Its capabilities span sell-side and buy-side

A corporation may be affected by a EU legilative proposal, for instance, to ban a new set of chemicals under the EU chemicals strategy.  In this instance, to hold the EU-wide proposed ban, and to thwart discriminatory national legislations, the COCOO’s strategy would include scientific, legal, political, social and economic elements. It would analyse the impact of the proposed restrictions, to the supply chains of various Member States. We could enter into discussions with the ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), the EC, the EP, the EU PRs (Permanent Representations], and the Member States’ Ministries of Industry and Environment.  The purpose: to make them understand the different chemical types.  For instance, a chemical that was to be banned, could be used to produce a certain type of plastic that is a better choice for the environment, economy and the wider public interest. In particular, the majority of plastic bags produced in Europe cause fewer greenhouse gasses, compared to paper and cotton bags

A corporation may be affected if the advertising of its product/service, is banned by the EC. For instance the corp’s advertising may be alleged to include indirect advertising of a product/service banned for advertising (like tobacco). The COCOO’s strategy would focus on the legislative differentiation between direct and indirect advertising, to argue that the advertising ban (on the corporation’s good/service) was based on an unlawful interpretation of the legislation. Thus, we could save both parties from wasteful litigation, that would have compromised EC’s legitimate economic activity and duty of attaining best value for money for taxpayers

The EC may be filing complaints/infringement proceedings, against a corporation, over EU State Aid (allegedly causing competition violations).  The COCOO’s strategy would be to shift athe EC focus and interpretation, away from State Aid considerations only, and toward relevant public interests like national security (of energy), environmental standards, the rule of law and investment protection.  The COCOO’s goal would be to convince the EU to enter a new agreement with the corporation, from which may no longer emerge State Aid-based EC complaints

-Example : a corporation may be receiving EU subsidies that the EC now regards as illegal State Aid. The COCOO’s strategy would be to remind the EU of their political duty to balance the nation’s property development goals, the public interest to the environment and state aid legislation, in order to get the EC, the nation, and the corporation, to settle a compromise, where the three interests, and the three parties, could benefit via mutual synergies

-Example: EC’s infringement proceedings against a Chinese corp, (say for ‘dumping’). A EU corporation relies heavily on importing a product from the Chinese corp, but import taxes (tariffs) had risen (due to EC’s proceedings].  The COCOO’s strategy would be to argue that the dumping was a natural consequence of the non-EU corp’s nation, macro-economic situation and production pressures. Our team would show that other market factors had contributed to the harm to the EU economy.  EC must show a causal link (between the dumped imports and the EU harm]. Further, we would contest the EC’s definition of the market for such imported goods, in light of their broader range of uses [The Celophane fallacy]

A Member State’s bank may receive complaints from shareholders [and even an implied threat of a derivative claim], over capital raising irregularities. The bank could probably have to undergo a hostile media campaign and an ECB audit.  The COCOO’s strategy would be to approach directly the European banking regulators and to press the EC and its Directorates, to clear the alleged irregularities and to announce such clearance publicly. The image/reputation of a bank, and its management, is crucial, and must not be harmed. Thus, the COCOO would emphasize the importance of investigations being short and restore public trust on the bank, and the european financial sector, to avoid another wave of economic and social instability that could affect national security, and require more EU taxpayers’ money to the bank rescue

Instigated political fear in EU and USA against China’s corps, may place their goods at risk of cybersecurity concerns (concerning the national security public interest). The COCOO’s strategy would be to show how the European cybersecurity strategy conflicts with the bilateral corp agreement [EU / China corp]. To implement this strategy, key EP members would be targetted in all relevant committees, and across the political spectrum, to emphasize the China corp’s success based on business reasons only, and its commmitment to Europe, adherence to EU standards and contribution to the EU economy. We would show that there was no Chinese government involvement in the China’s corp strategies, let alone any cyber security issue on its products

A corporation may complain to the EC about a competitor abusing its dominant position (DP). The DP corporation issued a proposal to only allow access to the market to rivals that met a certain % in market share  This proposal did not solve the corp’s risk of being blocked out of the market.  The COCOO’s strategy would be to convert technical and soft law instruments, into political messages, resonating with the EC’s language. It would argue that the proposal amounted to an oligopoly, thus, contrary to EU Treaty’s overarching goal: a common market via open competition

The EC may investigate possible rule of law violations by a Member State. The government of the Member State deflects blame onto the bankers (individuals], who are discredited as ‘banksters’ and imprisoned without bail. The COCOO’s strategy: to introduce a national court case, into EU politics, in order to extract national politics out of the national court case

Flawed EU & Member States’ legislation may, for instance :

-Fail to include R&D funding for specific products. The COCOO’s strategy would co-ordinate legal, ethical, medical and scientific (Platonic) concepts, into coheren arguments to show to the EC, EU Institutions and relavant competition authorities, the particularities of that line of research, the innovative value, safety and the differing approaches by Member States

– Distort, not just the rights of actual and potential competitors, but also the rights of actual and potential investors. The COCOO’s strategy would be to help the legal narrative of the national government, and that of the EC, come together, in a symbiotic form.  It would persuade the EC to pressure the national government into amending such legislation so that they are in line with EU legislation

– Threaten the survival of gamblinig operators or lottery associations. The COCOO’s strategy would be to show that the various regulations are incoherent, and mutually contradictory. Also, that the money laundering directive, cannot, arbitrarily, encompass all the gambling operations, without distinction of risk, volume and activity. We would convince the EC to launch infringement proceedings against the Member States that passed these regulations. EC’s ongoing failure to issue such proceedings would be an EC failure of duty to act. We would also attempt, vigorously, to hold back the scope of the money laundering directive, by establishing a distinction between casinos and other gambling operators. Monpolistic Member State laws and regulation impede free competition. The COCOO’s strategy would be to steer the legal framework to end this market distortions. The solution would be to coordinate the legislative dialogue to align the freedom of establishment in the cross border lottery market, with ECJ’s relevant decisions, and to bring the national sports legislation in line with EU law. The COCOO would demonstrate to the EC that the lottery associations and/or betting operators, are models of the type of economic activity that it has a duty to protect

Corps offering currency exchange at ATMs and shops, files complaint (with DG Comp) arguing that credit card corps are restricting free competition by the use of excessive rules & fees .  The COCOO’s strategy would be:

  • To give political support to the existing complaint
  • To advocate (to raise public awareness of the complaint)
  • To build support with merchant, consumer and other sectorial associations affected, to shift alliances
  • To inform officials and politicians, on the differences between the model offered by credit cards, and the model offered by currency exchange providers
  • To lay the foundations for amendments on the EU cross border payment regulation and the payment service directive

  • Leading fruit corps could be harmed by a EU decision to ban a particular pesticide. The COCOO’s strategy would be to argue for the preservation of the international standard for the use of such pesticide on the fruit markets affected. It would also attempt to gather evidence on health safety, the lack of efficient alternatives, and use trade and development arguments

A corp’s loan application may be ignored. The COCOO’s strategy would be to gain in-depth knowledge of the bank’s internal politics, to identify whether its conduct contradicts its constitutional objectives, in particular the objective to nation become a stand-alone market economy.

The COCOO could be hired to promote a particular good or service, to end the year-long impasse on public approval, and to pave the way for its classification as, say, an advanced biofuel. The COCOO’s strategy would be to advocate for a review of the existing list of advanced biofuels to create a level playing field. It would also highlight the benefits of the fuel and to mitigate concerns over threatening food production and land use

The COCOO could be hired to tackle a corp’s concern on the diversion of its product to a different sector, that creates both competition and investment distortions in the original sector. The COCOO’s strategy would be to push for amendments to the EU Renewable Energy Directive, so that the ‘cascading principle’ should be applied [meaning that any recycled substance should be used as a raw material, rather than for fuel]. We would bring together other industry players, and leading associations, to form a strong coalition, to show that the issue was beyond one single company

The COCOO could propose (via USP), or could be hired, to help prepare a merger or acquisition deal, and to guide it through the whole process, while ensuring the political backing of government and the competition authority

The COCOO could be hired to challenge the decision by a national regulator or a national competition authority. For instance, a decision to set arbitrary and disproportionate rates. The COCOO’s strategy would be to help the national government understand and implement its EU law obligations. It would also outline the principle of subsidiarity