Last night, the defense of SCA (today Essity) presented a report to the Supreme Court, which aims to overthrow the government, which condemned the US $ 18 million and independent CMPC payment – the Matte Group absorption and paper – after both collided to assign quotas of market share and set sales of its products prices, between the years 2000 at least until 2011.
It is a document written by the former president of the Court of Defense for Free Contest (TDLC), Tomás Menchaca, at the request of the SCA himself, in which he claims that CMPC has prohibited SCA, so he must be deprived of his rights. Every benefit
"The facts indicated in the trial – which indicates that threats of CMPC Fabric were eliminated by suppression from the market – allow us to maintain that the alleged agreement meets all the conditions required to accuse the loss of the benefit of CMPC.", He said the document that appears in the public file of the case in the Supreme Court.
The lawyer's reporter is breaking the case. Not only because the document was presented only a few hours before the arguments of the matter were made this morning in the Third Chamber of the highest court, but also because the jurist himself was excused during processing the case in the TDLC. The reason The lawyer in the past served professional services to one of the companies in the fabric sector of the fabric, FPC Fabric – signature linked to the Izdekstra family – and, on the other hand, the lawyerbrother, who was former CEO of PISA, Fernando Menchaca, who is also mentioned in the condemnable judgment of the TDLC.
"Being able to take away the benefit of the compensated statement must be serious and credible, and so that it has the capacity to meet its threat, which is nothing but that that has enough market power," he says. In this regard, the threat of the CMPC against SCA to eliminate it from the market if it does not participate in the collision "would clearly comply with the mandatory norm required by our legal system to prevent it due to the compensation of compensation," said the report.
But it's not the first time that Menchaca talks about the matter. In January, after the failure of the TDC, the academic UC, told PULSO that "(The TDLC) made it a requirement that there is a coherent that there was an irresistible physical or psychological violence that seems to me a little excessive norm, because there was a violence That nature, in my opinion, would not be an agreement, it would not even be a shock. "
For the outside lawyer of Conadecus and a partner of the Bravo study, Cristián Reyes, Menchaca's report is "incomprehensible". "The TDLC unanimously accepted the collision requirement presented by the FNE against CMPC and SCA, stating that both entered and executed agreements with the purpose of allocating market quota and repair sales of their products from 2000. Until at least December 2011," he said.
He also explained that "if the Minister of the Court considered that there was an agreement against any of these companies, this must be recorded in voting on the contrary or at least anticipation."
The defense of SCA Chile is headed by lawyer José Joaquín Ugarte, a companion of Ugarte Ried & Correa.