Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

18 results

  • 6 - Negotiated Leniency in Japan Embedded in Ever-Increasing Sanctions

  • from Part III - Leniency Programmes in Selected Asian Jurisdictions
  • Edited by Steven Van Uytsel, Mark Fenwick, Yoshiteru Uemura
  • Book:
    Leniency in Asian Competition Law
    Published online:
    15 September 2022
    Print publication:
    22 September 2022, pp 159-190

  • Summary

    This chapter investigates the 2019 amendment of the Japanese leniency programme. The authors’ approach starts by observing that the old leniency programme may have substantially contributed neither to detecting nor to deterring cartels. The question, therefore, is whether the new leniency programme, whereby the amount of reduction of the leniency programme is drastically lowered for subsequent applicants but which can be compensated by entering a consultation process with the JFTC regarding the information to be submitted, is able to address the limitations of the old leniency programme. The chapter concludes that this may not be the case, since the changes to the leniency programme only address the potential of subsequent leniency applications. Nothing is done to attract better leniency applications from the start. To increase deterrence, the authors therefore investigate whether there is still some possibility of tweaking the sanctions in order to compensate for what the leniency programme cannot yet achieve.

  • 1 - Leniency in Asian Competition Law

  • from Part I - Introduction
  • Edited by Steven Van Uytsel, Mark Fenwick, Yoshiteru Uemura
  • Book:
    Leniency in Asian Competition Law
    Published online:
    15 September 2022
    Print publication:
    22 September 2022, pp 3-34

  • Summary

    This chapter is an introduction to the book. The chapter therefore starts with introducing the practical necessity for a leniency programme and the first use of a leniency programme in the United States. After this, the focus shifts to Asia. The chapter indicates that competition law in Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon, which, in turn, has had an impact on the implementation of the leniency programme in Asia. Since the Asian countries, more specifically China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines, saw the success of the leniency programme in other jurisdictions, their embrace of the leniency programme was not only fast but also recent. This means that these leniency programmes have not yet been researched against the existing theoretical literature.

  • 16 - Leniency Programmes in Asia

  • from Part IV - Concluding Remarks
  • Edited by Steven Van Uytsel, Mark Fenwick, Yoshiteru Uemura
  • Book:
    Leniency in Asian Competition Law
    Published online:
    15 September 2022
    Print publication:
    22 September 2022, pp 395-414

  • Summary

    The concluding chapter argues that the Asian leniency programmes only converge on the core elements of a leniency programme. The core elements are the building blocks of a leniency programme. However, the composition of these blocks is often different. Some of the differences are subtle. Other differences make the respective leniency programme distinct from the others. Some of the distinctive elements are not necessarily part of the building blocks any more and thus give a unique character to the respective leniency programme. This chapter further claims that these differences can be explained by either the political economy of a country, experimentation due to prior negative enforcement results and a desire to achieve better enforcement results, or foreign influence. Since the result of experimentation cannot always be predicted, the authors estimate that further amendments will be made to the Asian leniency programmes.

Leniency in Asian Competition Law
  • Edited by Steven Van Uytsel, Mark Fenwick, Yoshiteru Uemura
  • Published online:
    15 September 2022
    Print publication:
    22 September 2022
  • In response to cartel formation, competition lawyers and policymakers in nine Asian jurisdictions have experimented with leniency programmes. This mechanism allows firms to come forward with information in relation to their illegal cartel participation in return for a reduction of or immunity from a sanction. The experimentation plays out across three different dimensions: the revision of early adopted leniency programmes, the introduction of newly written leniency programmes, and the decision – deliberate or otherwise – not to create a leniency programme. This volume is the first to analyse the empirical evidence across a number of countries to determine how effective these measures have been, and how they have been amended in response to problems encountered. In this volume, local experts from key Asian jurisdictions, together with international experts, offer an introduction to this fast-developing field, and explore the theoretical, international and regulatory contexts of leniency programmes.

  • Predictive factors for hyperglycaemic progression in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder

  • Ichiro Kusumi, Yuki Arai, Ryo Okubo, Minoru Honda, Yasuhiro Matsuda, Yukihiko Matsuda, Akihiko Tochigi, Yoshiteru Takekita, Hiroyoshi Yamanaka, Keiichi Uemura, Koichi Ito, Kiyoshi Tsuchiya, Jun Yamada, Bunta Yoshimura, Nobuyuki Mitsui, Sigehiro Matsubara, Takayuki Segawa, Nobuyuki Nishi, Yasufumi Sugawara, Yuki Kako, Ikuta Shinkawa, Kaoru Shinohara, Akiko Konishi, Junichi Iga, Naoki Hashimoto, Shinsaku Inomata, Noriko Tsukamoto, Hiroto Ito, Yoichi M. Ito, Norihiro Sato
  • Journal:
    BJPsych Open / Volume 4 / Issue 6 / November 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 October 2018, pp. 454-460
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Background

    Patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder have a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

    Aims

    To identify predictive factors for hyperglycaemic progression in individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and to determine whether hyperglycaemic progression rates differ among antipsychotics in regular clinical practice.

    Method

    We recruited 1166 patients who initially had normal or prediabetic glucose levels for a nationwide, multisite, l-year prospective cohort study to determine predictive factors for hyperglycaemic progression. We also examined whether hyperglycaemic progression varied among patients receiving monotherapy with the six most frequently used antipsychotics.

    Results

    High baseline serum triglycerides and coexisting hypertension significantly predicted hyperglycaemic progression. The six most frequently used antipsychotics did not significantly differ in their associated hyperglycaemic progression rates over the 1-year observation period.

    Conclusions

    Clinicians should carefully evaluate baseline serum triglycerides and coexisting hypertension and perform strict longitudinal monitoring irrespective of the antipsychotic used.

    Declaration of interest

    The authors report no financial or other relationship that is relevant to the subject of this article. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work are as follows. I.K. has received honoraria from Astellas, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Meiji Seika Pharma, MSD, Nippon Chemiphar, Novartis Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma, Shionogi and Yoshitomiyakuhin; has received research/grant support from AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Meiji Seika Pharma, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma, Shionogi and Yoshitomiyakuhin; and is a member of the advisory boards of Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Y.T. has received speaker's honoraria from Dainippon-Sumitomo Pharma, Otsuka, Meiji-Seika Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo Company, UCB Japan and Ono Pharmaceutical. K.U. has received honoraria from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Meiji Seika Pharma, MSD, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma, Shionogi and Yoshitomiyakuhin. B.Y. has received speaker's honoraria from Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Janssen Pharmaceutical. J. I. has received honoraria from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Meiji Seika Pharma, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Mochida Pharma.