Prompts

Juristische KI-Prompts für Competition & Antitrust

9 Prompts, die Sie direkt in HAQQ oder einen anderen Assistenten einfügen können. Jeder ist vollständig ausgeschrieben. Öffnen, kopieren, die Teile in eckigen Klammern anpassen.

• Nigerian Competition Research Tables for ClientsTable / TimelineEnterpriseResearch / Authorities

  You are a competition lawyer in Nigeria writing a formal research note for a client who is planning a transaction or commercial arrangement. Present the research as tables, and mark each entry as verified against a named source or as unverified. Where the transaction also touches other countries or sector regulators, set out which regime has priority on each question and how overlaps are handled.
  
  Facts: the client is [Client Name] in the [Sector] sector; the proposed step is [Transaction or Conduct]; the counterparty is [Counterparty]; the turnover and asset figures in Nigeria are [Nigerian Turnover and Assets]; the market shares are [Market Shares]; other countries involved are [Other Countries]; the sector regulator is [Sector Regulator]; the target signing date is [Target Date]; the client's concern is [Client Concern].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A table of the legal questions to resolve, each with the source to check and its verification status.
  2. A table of merger control triggers, with columns for the test, the figures needed, whether the client appears to meet it and what is still unknown.
  3. A table of conduct risks, such as exclusivity, tying, information exchange and abuse of a dominant position, with the facts that would raise or lower each.
  4. A table of overlaps with the sector regulator and with other countries' regimes, stating which body decides and in what order.
  5. A table of the procedure and timetable, from pre-notification contact to decision, with the effect of a suspensory period on signing and closing.
  6. A table of exposure if the step is taken without clearance, with penalties described only as stated in a cited source.
  7. A table of the facts and documents still needed from the client.
  8. A table of the points for local counsel and the order in which to resolve them.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, section number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule, threshold, rate or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Name only regulators you are certain exist. Do not state that a filing is or is not required unless every figure needed is supplied; say what is missing instead. Do not predict a decision. The note is for the client and does not replace advice on its specific position.

• Nigerian Distribution Agreement Competition ReviewTable / TimelineAdvancedReview / Redline

  You are counsel in Nigeria reviewing a distribution agreement for competition risk on behalf of a company whose board must decide whether to sign. Write analytically and put the findings in a clause-by-clause table the board can follow.
  
  Facts: the company is [Company Name]; the agreement is with [Distributor] for [Product or Service]; the territory is [Territory]; our share of the relevant market is [Market Share]; the clauses to review are [Clauses or Attached Draft]; the board meets on [Board Date].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A table of each clause that restricts price, territory, customers, exclusivity or resale, with the risk it raises and a rating of high, medium or low.
  2. A short analysis of whether the company's market position makes any clause more sensitive.
  3. For each high or medium risk, a safer alternative wording.
  4. A list of the facts that would change the ratings.
  5. A recommendation to sign, sign with changes, or hold, with the reason in three sentences.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, section number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule, rate or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Do not label a clause lawful or unlawful; describe the risk and the facts it turns on. Say if you were not given the full agreement or the market data, and show which rating that limits.

• Distributor Exclusivity Negotiation Playbook for FrancePlaybookExpertNegotiate / Counter

  You are a lawyer on the internal legal team of a supplier preparing a concise negotiation playbook for talks with a French distributor, where the distributor says it was promised exclusivity and the supplier wants to restructure the territory and online sales rules. Analyse the position under French contract law and European competition law in general terms, and say where the competition rules limit what either side can ask for.
  
  Facts: the supplier is [Supplier Name] and the distributor is [Distributor Name]; the distribution contract is dated [Contract Date] and covers [Territory and Products]; the exclusivity language reads [Exclusivity Wording]; the supplier wants [Supplier Objectives]; the distributor's stated demands are [Distributor Demands]; the combined market position is [Market Share Information]; the term and notice position is [Term and Notice]; and the walk-away position is [Walk Away Position].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A one-paragraph read of whether exclusivity exists, on what words and conduct, and how strong the distributor's claim is.
  2. A list of the competition law limits on the restructuring, in particular on online sales, resale price, passive sales and territorial protection.
  3. A table of the supplier's opening position, target and fallback on each issue.
  4. The distributor's likely arguments and the best answer to each, in one line each.
  5. A list of concessions to trade, ordered by cost to the supplier, with what to ask for in return.
  6. A short list of risks if talks fail, including termination, compensation claims and regulator interest.
  7. Wording points for any settlement or amendment.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name, block exemption detail or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, threshold or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for French counsel. Do not recommend any term that restricts resale price or customer allocation without flagging the competition risk. Do not state the amount of any compensation as fact. Keep each item short and use the table only for the positions.

• Client FAQ Before a Competition Authority VisitQ&A / ExplainerStarterPrepare / Brief

  You are a lawyer preparing a client for a possible unannounced competition authority visit, with a formal question and answer sheet for the client's staff.
  
  Facts: the client is [Client Name], operating in [Industry Sector], subject to the competition law of [Jurisdiction], with its main office at [Office Location].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. Ten likely staff questions with short answers, on who may enter, what may be copied and who to call first.
  2. A short list of what staff must never do during a visit.
  3. A short list of what the client should do immediately after the visit ends.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every power, right or deadline you mention or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Do not tell staff they may refuse entry or access unless a source supports it.

• Public Letter on a Competition InvestigationLetter / EmailAdvancedClient Communications

  You are drafting, for a company's general counsel, a plain-language open letter to customers and the public about a competition investigation that has become known, written so that a non-lawyer understands it and without any admission of liability.
  
  Facts: the company is [Company], the authority involved is [Competition authority], the investigation concerns [Alleged conduct in one line], the stage reached is [Stage of the procedure], the markets and countries affected are [Markets and countries], and the points the company can confirm are [Confirmed facts].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A short opening that says what is happening and what is not yet known.
  2. A plain explanation of what the authority does and what normally happens at the stage reached.
  3. What customers and suppliers need to do, if anything, with continuity of service stated only if it is confirmed.
  4. A statement of cooperation that admits nothing.
  5. A contact line and a commitment on when the next update will be given.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule or deadline you mention or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Where authorities in several countries are involved, say that each applies its own law and timetable and do not predict one outcome from another. Do not state or imply guilt, innocence or a likely fine, and leave out privileged material and any mention of leniency or settlement talks.

• Multi-Jurisdiction Merger Control Summary MemoMemoExpertSummarize / Extract

  You are summarising the merger control position of a cross-border transaction for the in-house legal team of the acquirer, in an analytical memo that shows where the filings conflict and in what order decisions must be taken.
  
  Facts: the acquirer is [Acquirer], the target is [Target], the deal is [Transaction description and value], the parties have turnover and assets in [List of countries], the proposed signing date is [Signing date], the long-stop date is [Long-stop date], and the overlaps between the parties are [Overlapping activities and market shares].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A one-paragraph bottom line on whether the deal looks likely to need filings in several systems.
  2. A table by country showing whether a filing is mandatory or voluntary, the trigger, whether the regime suspends closing, and the review stages with their usual duration.
  3. The countries where a filing is uncertain and the facts that would settle it.
  4. The risk of acting before clearance, with the steps needed to keep the parties independent until closing.
  5. Where the authorities may reach different views on market definition or remedies, and which view should drive the strategy.
  6. A filing sequence that fits the long-stop date, with the decision gates and who decides each one.
  7. The conditions precedent and the allocation of remedy risk the sale agreement should carry.
  8. The information still needed from the business.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every threshold, rate or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Where regimes conflict, state which one is the binding constraint and why. Do not predict a clearance or a remedy outcome, and state any assumption you made about the overlaps.

• Competition-Safe Distribution Clause Proposals for South AfricaClause / ScheduleExpertNegotiate / Counter

  You are acting for a supplier negotiating a distribution agreement under South African law and must put clause proposals to the distributor that replace its requests for resale price control and wide exclusivity with terms that carry less competition risk, in a persuasive tone that keeps the commercial relationship intact.
  
  Facts: the supplier is [Supplier], the distributor is [Distributor], the products are [Products], the territory is [Territory], the distributor has asked for [Distributor's requests], the parties' approximate market shares are [Market shares], and the supplier's commercial priorities are [Supplier's priorities].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A short statement of the common interest that opens the proposal and presents the changes as protecting both sides.
  2. A clause on pricing that gives the distributor the pricing support it wants without fixing or controlling its resale price.
  3. A clause on exclusivity, territory and customer allocation that is narrower than the request, with the reason each limit is there.
  4. A clause on non-compete and minimum purchase obligations, with a duration that is defensible.
  5. A clause on information exchange between the parties that limits what is shared.
  6. A table comparing each request, the proposed alternative and the concession that makes it acceptable.
  7. A fallback position for each clause if the distributor refuses.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, threshold or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel; name the Competition Commission only where you point to its published guidance. Do not describe any clause as safe or exempt without a stated basis. The persuasive tone must not misstate the law to the counterparty, and any statement of risk must be one you can support.

• Exclusivity Clause Antitrust Check for ChinaReportStandardReview / Redline

  You are reviewing the exclusivity and pricing terms of a distribution arrangement for a client selling in China, to flag competition law risk. Keep the report concise and use plain business wording.
  
  Facts: the client is [Client Name], a [Supplier or Distributor] of [Product or Service]; the other party is [Counterparty Name]; the terms under review are [Exclusivity and Pricing Terms]; the client's estimated share of the relevant market is [Market Share Estimate].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A one-paragraph risk summary naming the terms most likely to attract scrutiny.
  2. A short list of the terms, each marked as low, medium or high risk with a one-sentence reason.
  3. Suggested redrafting directions for the medium and high risk terms.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule or threshold, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel in China. Do not conclude that a term is lawful or unlawful, only how exposed it looks. Ask for the market share basis if the estimate is missing. This report is not legal advice on the client's specific situation.

• Competition Risk Memo on Commercial Cooperation AgreementsMemoExpertReview / Redline

  Write a formal memorandum for [Client Name] reviewing [Agreement Title] for competition law risk under the law of [Jurisdiction], and telling the client whether it can sign as drafted. The memo goes to the client's board and must state clearly where the answer depends on facts I have not supplied.
  
  Facts: the parties and their positions are [Parties and Market Positions]; the market in which they compete or trade is [Relevant Market]; their combined share is about [Combined Market Share]; the terms causing concern are [Restrictive Terms]; the agreement will also be performed in [Other Territories].
  
  Deliverables:
  1. A short answer stating the overall risk level as low, medium or high, with your confidence in it.
  2. A classification of each concerning term as horizontal or vertical, and as a restriction that regimes commonly treat as unlawful by its nature or one assessed by its effects.
  3. The market definition inputs and market power indicators needed, and what is missing from the facts above.
  4. An analysis of whether any exemption, safe harbour or threshold may apply in [Jurisdiction], with what must be verified before relying on it.
  5. An assessment of what competitively sensitive information would pass between the parties and by what channel.
  6. A note on [Other Territories]: where several regimes could apply, how they interact, and which stricter standard to design for if they conflict.
  7. Recommended amendments in order of importance, each with a fallback position.
  
  Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule, rate or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Do not conclude that a term is lawful because it is common in the industry. Do not assume the market share figure is reliable; say what changes if it is higher. Say whether a filing or a notification to an authority needs checking. This memo does not replace advice on the client's own situation from counsel in [Jurisdiction].

Alle 631 Prompts durchsuchen