Competition Expert Reports

At martinsdelima, we prepare expert competition reports for litigation, arbitration, and proceedings before authorities, combining market analysis, document review, and quantitative modeling. Our goal is to turn complex debates into clear, verifiable, and defensible conclusions, with an approach designed to be useful “in the courtroom”: traceability of sources, methodological transparency, and an explanation that is understandable for non-technical profiles.
We work with counterfactual methodologies (what would have happened without the conduct), applied economic analysis, and, when the evidence allows, econometrics and data analysis. We always prioritize robustness: separating hypotheses from evidence, subjecting results to sensitivity tests, and presenting findings with a solid and easy-to-follow technical narrative.

Analysis of authorities’ files
We review competition files with a dual perspective: procedural and economic. We identify the elements that truly support (or weaken) the file’s thesis: facts, documentary evidence, statements, and the underlying economic logic. Our work converts large volumes of information into a clear structure of evidence, indicating which evidence supports each claim and which inferences require additional support.
Based on this critical reading, we provide technical support to the strategy: risk map, points of attack and defense, and evidentiary needs. When the debate focuses on economic interpretation, we develop analyses that rigorously explain whether the account is compatible with the actual functioning of the market (prices, negotiation, incentives, substitution, entry, and competitive reaction), reinforcing the legal team’s ability to sustain a consistent and persuasive position.
 
Calculation of damages and effects of anticompetitive practices
In claims for damages and disputes over restrictive conduct, we construct a complete explanation of the damage mechanism: how the conduct affects prices, commercial conditions, demand, market access, margins, or profitability. We do not stop at theory: we connect facts with effects through documentary evidence and data, and translate that link into a defensible and understandable quantification.
Our approach relies on counterfactuals adapted to the case: temporal comparisons, benchmarking, analysis of structural changes, and quantitative models when appropriate. We present results with traceability and technical prudence, delimiting what part of the impact is attributable to the conduct and what part may be due to alternative factors, reinforcing the soundness of the report against expert scrutiny.
 
Damages in cartels (Overcharges, pass-on, lost profits, interest)
In cartel cases, we develop rigorous estimates of overcharge and its economic effects, avoiding simplifications that are vulnerable in the courtroom. We analyze how prices are formed, what variables explain their evolution, and what comparables are truly valid, to construct a credible counterfactual that is consistent with the competitive dynamics of the sector.
We provide a complete technical account: definition of the reference period, treatment of mix changes, negotiation effects, relevant segmentations, and consistency with documentary evidence. The result is a solid quantification, accompanied by sensitivity tests and pedagogical explanation, so that the court can understand why the estimated overcharge is reasonable, traceable, and defensible.
 
Abuse of dominance and analysis of vertical restraints
In matters of abuse of dominant position and vertical restraints, our work focuses on the essentials: conduct, incentives, and effects. We analyze common practices such as resale price maintenance (RPM), recommended prices and commercial pressure, limitations on active or passive sales, exclusive supply or purchase, territoriality, restrictions on online sales and use of marketplaces, most-favored-customer clauses (MFN/parity), non-competition, contractual bundling/tying, and selective distribution systems (access criteria, qualitative requirements, and their actual application). We evaluate whether these measures can generate market foreclosure, raise rivals’ costs, reduce intra-brand competition, or distort commercial conditions, and we contrast their actual functioning based on contracts, communications, commercial practices, and market evidence.
When justifications or efficiencies are alleged, we treat them with the same rigor: we verify whether they are plausible, demonstrable, and proportionate (for example, brand protection, investment in service, prevention of free-riding, safety, or quality), and whether there are less restrictive alternatives that achieve the same objective. The result is a balanced and robust conclusion, which separates the hypothetical from the proven and provides a solid basis for sustaining positions of defense or claim with maximum clarity and defensibility.
.
Analysis of the relevant market, market power, and barriers to entry
We build the foundation on which any competition case rests: the market dimension. We define the relevant market (product and geography) with economic criteria and evidence of actual functioning: substitution, customer behavior, negotiation conditions, price structure, segmentations, and operational restrictions. This work avoids “textbook” analyses and provides an accurate picture of how operators compete in practice.
From there, we evaluate market power and barriers to entry: market shares interpreted correctly, concentration, customer dependence, access to inputs, economies of scale, switching costs, regulation, capacity, and competitive reaction. We do not just calculate: we explain what these indicators mean and how they fit with the reality of the sector, generating a solid and highly defensible narrative.
 
Unfair competition
In unfair competition, our differential value is the traceability of the damage. We connect the disputed conduct with the economic impact through performance analysis, documentary evidence, time series, and economic coherence. We identify causal channels (loss of sales, price degradation, demand diversion, margin deterioration, operating overcosts) and evaluate their plausibility against alternative explanations.
When appropriate, we quantify actual damages and lost profits in a defensible manner, with methods consistent with the available data and with the evidentiary standard of the procedure. We present results with clarity, explicit assumptions, and sensitivity, so that the report is not just “a calculation” but a complete economic story, ready to be defended rigorously in negotiation or in the courtroom.

Critical review and counter-expertise
When there is a report from the opposing party, we approach it methodically: we audit assumptions, selection of comparables, causal attribution, internal consistency, and data processing. We identify weak points (biases, omissions, unjustified inferences, errors in the construction of the counterfactual) and propose more solid alternatives, reinforcing the legal team’s ability to debate with technical precision.
This work is often decisive because it translates the technical disagreement into clear and verifiable arguments. Our goal is to raise the standard of the debate: that the discussion focuses on evidence, methods, and economic coherence. Thus, the counter-expertise becomes a strategic tool to negotiate from a strong position or sustain a convincing refutation before the court.