106 / 391
NEWS LETTER 2 0 1 0
92
•
Votka 1967 is subject to the oversight of the supervision expert.
As the Board cannot supervise the implementation of submitted
commitments during the transition period and the divestiture, a
supervision trustee (or “monitoring trustee” as stated in the Notice)
will do it for the Board. Articles 117 et seq. of the Notice also
provide that a supervision trustee shall be appointed. Within this
scope, the decision of the Board is correct.
•
The monthly reporting duty of the commitment party is included
in the “Supervisory Expert Contract”. As also stated in Article 118
of the Notice, the supervision trustee will be the Board’s
“eyes and
ears”
. Within this scope, the decision of the Board is correct.
•
The statement in the “Divestiture Expert Contract” that “the
divestiture expert must not cause any damages to Mey İçki in the
sale of the assets” is not understood as applying a minimum price.
As also set forth in Articles 121 and 122 of the Notice, in addition
to the supervision trustee, a divestiture trustee must also be present.
This divestiture trustee must also be proposed by the parties.
•
The statement that the time limits in the review provision may
be extended is omitted. This provision was newly brought by the
Notice. This provision intends to permit, upon request by the parties
showing good cause, commitments to be modified or extensions of
deadlines to be granted. Within this scope, the existence of this
provision among commitments clearly shows that the Board acts in
parallel with the Commission.
•
The budget to be determined within Mey İçki for the Burgaz
business is made objectively in a way not to restrict the activities of
Burgaz and to include the necessary investment. Our comments set
forth under point 1 are also valid here.
•
Moreover, the Board, by taking into account the difference
between condition and obligation, stated that those provisions of
the commitment and the aforementioned conditions relating to the
divestiture of raki, gin and liquor businesses and the trademark of
Votka 1967 within (…) period of time shall be defined as conditions;
whereas the other provisions will be defined as obligations. The
Board also decided that the authorization will be deemed invalid
if the conditions are not fulfilled within the due period and/or if