Acusación FNE

Vista previa del material en texto

This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
1 
 
 
 
MAIN CLAIM: Complaint against Agrícola Agrosuper S.A.and others (Defendants) 
FIRST: Documents 
SECOND: Public versions 
THIRD: Bailiff 
FOURTH: Representation and powers of attorney 
 
Honorable Competition Court 
 
 FELIPE IRARRÁZABAL PHILIPPI, ECONOMIC NATIONAL PROSECUTOR, 
domiciled in Agustinas Nº 853, 2nd floor, Santiago, to this Hon. Court I respectfully say: 
 
According to the provisions set out in articles 1°, 3°, 18, 19 and subsequent 26 and 39 letters b) 
and c) of DL N° 211, and based on the facts, legal and economic arguments exposed herein, I hereby 
present a complaint against the following persons: 
 
(i) AGRICOLA AGROSUPER S.A. (hereafter “Agrosuper”), agricultural investment 
company, RUT 78.426.020-8, represented by its general manager Mr. Carlos José 
Guzmán Vial, agronomist engineer, both domiciled for these purposes in Camino La 
Estrella N° 401; Rancagua; 
 
(ii) EMPRESAS ARIZTÍA S.A. (hereafter “Ariztía”) agricultural investment company, RUT 
78.462.910-1, represented by its general manager Mr. Ismael Correa Rodriguez, 
commercial engineer, both domiciled for these purposes in Los Carrera N° 444, 
Melipilla; 
 
(iii) AGRICOLA DON POLLO LIMITADA ( hereafter “ Don Pollo”), company, RUT 
79.662.080-3, represented by its general manager, Mr. Ramón Cobarrubias Matte, 
agricultural technician, both domiciled for these purposes in Camino El Mariscal N° 
1590, La Pintana; and 
 
 
 
 
 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
(iv) ASOCIACION DE PRODUCTORES AVÍCOLAS DE CHILE A.G. (hereafter “APA”), 
Trade Association of poultry companies, RUT: 71.893.300-5, represented by its 
President, Mr. Juan Miguel Ovalle Garcés, commercial engineer, both domiciled for 
these purposes in Avenida Isidora Goyonechea N° 2939, office 701, Las Condes, 
Santiago. 
 
The three Defendant Producing Companies
1
, that together concentrate more than the 92% of 
the national poultry production, destined to the internal market
2
, and more than the 93% of its 
commercialization in Chile
3
, by themselves and/or through their related companies, have infringed 
article 3° of DL N° 211, by celebrating and executing an agreement between competitors, consisting in 
limiting their production, controlling the amount produced and offered to the national market, and 
assigning market quotas, in the market for the production and commercialization of the mentioned 
product. 
 
In fact, as it will be proved, the Defendant Producing Companies, by using models of projected 
demand, have determined year by year, the total quantity of chicken meat that they will sell in the 
national market and, in relation to this, have assigned marked quotas and determined what each 
member of the cartel must produce in the national market. 
 
In this way, and given the market power that the Defendant Producing Companies jointly hold, 
through their actions, have significantly altered competition, in the market of production and wholesale 
of chicken meat. 
 
The implementation and execution throughout time, of this anticompetitive agreement, has been 
possible given the permanent exchanges of sensitive information between the Defendant Producing 
Companies, in APA -trade association that during the period in which the agreement was in force 
 
1
 Hereafter “Defendant Producing Companies” will be understood as Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo. 
On the other hand “Defendants” will be understood as Agrosuper, Ariztía, Don Pollo and APA. 
2
 According to figures corresponding to the period between January-October 2010. 
3
 According to figures of 2010 and, in this case, without considering imports from third parties different from 
the Defendant Producing Companies. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
3 
 
gathered Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo
4
-, under whose coordination the cartel that motivates the 
present complaint has been celebrated, executed and monitored. 
 
 Due to the gravity of the facts, the National Economic Prosecutor asks this Court to condemn 
each of the Defendant Producing Companies to the maximum fine established in our legislation. At the 
same time, and given the role of facilitator that that APA has held, it is requested that the Hon. Court, 
orders, in addition to the payment of the fine, its dissolution. 
 
I. FACTS 
 
1. Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo, main producers and marketers of chicken in the country, have 
celebrated an anticompetitive agreement, by virtue of which they have limited the production, 
controlled the amount produced and offered to the national market, and assigned quotas of 
market participation, during, at least, ten years. 
 
2. The mechanism adopted for the effectiveness of this agreement is directly related with the 
production that the three Defendant Producing Companies destine to the national market. For 
these purposes, from the year 1995, the Defendant Producing Companies, coordinating through 
APA, have generated annual projections of chicken consumption for the following year; by virtue 
of which, they determined the tons of chicken meat they must produce and sell jointly, in the 
national market, during the corresponding year. 
 
3. The mentioned projection is generally elaborated in the last trimester of the previous year, with 
the information of prices and sales existent at that time, delivered by the Defendant Producing 
Companies to APA. Notwithstanding the adjustments that the Defendant may do during the 
course of the year. 
 
4. In this way, APA projected the different possible scenarios of consumption of chicken for the 
coming year, elaborated from different variables that, according to what the Defendant pointed 
out, have incidence in the determination of the chicken demand. In the last years, the projection 
model of demand was perfected, incorporating variables for an econometric analysis that 
 
4
 Since 2009 Agricola Santa Rosa is associated to APA, although it does not send or receive information from 
the mentioned association. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
4 
 
considers, for instance, the IMACEC, imports of chicken, and the price of chicken meat, beef, 
and pig. 
 
5. Then, the scenarios determined, are discussed by high executives of the Defendant Producing 
Companies in the Directory meetings of APA, or in others called specially for that matter by the 
mentioned trade association, in which one of the selected scenarios projected by the members 
of the cartel is chosen. 
 
6. Using as a starting point the total estimated demand projected for the national market -having 
chosen the scenario-, the Defendant deduct the quantities they estimate will be covered by 
imports, and by other national companies which are not parties to the cartel, and determine 
what will be destined to the national market. 
 
7. At the same time, the amount corresponding to the national market is distributed amongst them 
in determined percentages that, despite having experimented certain variations, revolve around 
61% for Agrosuper, 31% for Ariztía and 8% for Don Pollo. In this way, APA projected the weekly 
load for each one, despite the adjustments made by them which in turn, affect the annual 
projection. 
 
8. In this context, APA has fulfilled the following functions: (i) elaborate demand projections of 
chicken meat based on the information delivered by the Defendant Producing Companies; (ii) 
sent detail figures of loads
5
 assigned to each one o them for the whole year -figures that are 
periodically revised-; (iii) monitor the compliance of the adopted agreement ,informing what is 
actually commercialized by each company on a weeklybasis
6
; and (iv) coordinate -when 
applicable- adjustments loads for Agrosuper, Aristía and Don Pollo. 
 
9. This way, for instance, as to the adjustment of loads, APA has coordinated the Defendant 
Producing Companies to, as the case required, reduce the previously established loads, 
intensify exports, increase stocks of frozen products or proceed to the killing of new born 
chickens, managing to perform the modifications in a coordinated manner and fulfilling the 
quotas agreed between the cartel members, as is the case with the annual projections. 
 
5
 From a technical point of view, the term “loads” refers to the inclusion of eggs in the incubators. However, 
the Defendants use it as quantities or units of chickens slaughtered or to be slaughtered. 
6
 Thus, sales actually made by each company (“Real Sales”, according to the wording used in the reports 
prepared by APA), are offset permanently with the agreed quantities (“Projected Sales”, according to the 
wording used in the reports prepared by APA). 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
5 
 
 
10. The mentioned agreement has been effectively monitored due to the permanent information 
exchanges between the Defendant Producing Companies, under APA. In fact, the Defendant 
Producing Companies have delivered and exchanged sensitive, strategic and detailed 
information of their businesses, sending weekly and monthly data to APA, related to: 
 
 Sales by cuts in units, kilos and value; 
 Exports, in kilos and value; and, 
 Stocks of frozen products, destined for the national and international markets. 
 
11. APA, with the information received by the Defendant Producing Companies, has elaborated 
various reports, among those are: (i)Report of the Poultry Market
7
; (ii) Weekly and Monthly 
Reports of Chicken Sales
8
;(iii) Weekly Report of Production and Sales
9
; and, (iv) Monthly 
 
 
 
7
 This is a monthly report, - with two months of lag- in which the national production, internal sales in gross 
weight) and exports (gross weight and dollars) of chicken and turkey meat in the industry. For the 
preparation of this report, APA uses information regarding the monthly production of poultry meat that the 
Defendant Producing Companies send to the National Institute of Statistics (“INE”), as well as the report 
published by the mentioned organ, to determine the production of companies not belonging to APA. In any 
case, it should be mentioned that the information published by INE is aggregated at industry level, whereas 
APA´s report is disaggregated in relation to the Defendant Producing Companies, thus one may suppose that 
it’s them who send APA the information sent to INE. 
The report is sent by APA through e mail, to the general and commercial managers of the Defendant 
Producing Companies, as well as to other high executives of these; and in its cover the following phrase is 
included “Reserved Use for Companies Associated to APA (do not quote, do not copy, do not distribute)” 
8
 The reports on sales, weekly and monthly, contain an analysis of sales and exports by the Defendant 
Producing Companies, both in kilos and units – as well as values in the case of the monthly report-, making 
reference also to the stock of frozen products destined both to the national and export markets. The 
information contained in the monthly report was disaggregated by company till May 2010, in this month the 
information started being delivered aggregated; in the same way, the information contained in the weekly 
report was delivered disaggregated until week N°21 of 2010, corresponding to the period between May 24
th
 
and 30
th
, from this last date the information started being delivered aggregated. 
Until recently, both reports where published in APA´s web page, in a link with exclusive access for 
associates, with access only to those users specifically appointed by each company. Currently, they are sent 
by e mail to the commercial managers of the Defendant Producing Companies. 
9
 In this weekly report real sales of the Defendant Producing Companies are compared in kilos and units with 
the projected sales in kilos and units for that same period by APA for the same companies, as well as the real 
sales in the previous year. 
Additionally the report contains the stock of products, both frozen and alive, and the average weight of the 
chicken sold. The information is aggregated and sent through e mail to the commercial managers of the 
Defendant Producing Companies. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
6 
 
 
Report of Average Prices of the Different Cuts
10
, amongst others. These reports have been 
delivered to the Defendant Producing Companies or put at their disposal, in a link with restricted 
access only for Agrosuper, Ariztia and Don Pollo. 
 
12. Hon. Court, notwithstanding the conduct charged in these proceedings, there are also concrete 
facts that point to joint decisions and agreements over relevant aspects of competition by the 
Defendant Producing Companies gathered in APA, in 1994, they carried out initiatives with the 
aim of obtaining - according to their own words- “a reasonable development for the sector”. 
 
 
13. This is an important precedent of the agreement to which this action refers, because in that 
opportunity, not withstanding the fact that the Defendant Producing Companies -In APA- agreed 
on common reference prices, already since that date, they also established that, in order to 
monitor and facilitate the compliance of the pact, they committed to “ give (…) all the information 
that may affect the normal compliance of this agreement, such as un programmed lower 
production levels , exports (…)” 
 
14. The roll of inspector of the pact fell upon an organ of permanet character created for that effect, 
called the “Evaluation Commission”, integrated by three persons designated by the cartel 
participants, and an executive secretary, Mr. Juan Miguel Ovalle, till the date President of APA. 
 
15. Various elements of the agreement of 1994 where modified successively by the Defendant, 
entailing, according to documentation from 1995, prices, differences by zones, discounts, 
marketing, participants of the agreement, fines, delegates, amongst others,. 
 
16. Against this frame, in the same year 1995, they agreed to inform weekly and monthly loads, 
production in kilos, and sales in units, kilos and values, information that to date is sent by them 
to APA. The agreement included the decision of globalizing and delivering information to its 
members, a task that has been facilitated and coordinated by APA. 
 
 
10
 In this monthly report, the average price per kilo of chicken is analyzed, also that of its main cuts ( whole 
chicken, cut and MSC), which is obtained dividing the sales of those cuts by the kilos sold. The information is 
published aggregated and is sent by e mail to the commercial managers of the Defendant Producing 
Companies. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
7 
 
17. The collusive behavior of the Defendant derived in an agreement consistent in the limitation of 
production, control of the amount produced and offered in the market, and in the assignation of 
market quotas for the production and commercialization of chicken meat. In fact, unequivocal 
findings of the charged agreement in these proceedings, where already evidenced in 
information exchanges between the President of APA and high executives of the mentioned 
companies in the year 2000, not varying their coordinated behavior in the years following that 
date. 
 
18. Hon. Court, the agreement object of this action has been successful. In fact, the Defendant 
Producing Companies, organized by their trade association, have managed to limittheir 
production and sustain their market quotas in accordance to their agreement. 
 
19. The market shares of the Defendant Producing Companies have been stable throughout time, 
as can be deduced from Graph N° 1, in which it may be observed that, in average, they 
correspond to: 60,51% Agrosuper, 30,52% Ariztia 8,97 % Don Pollo. 
 
Graph N°1 
Market Share by company based on joint production (Kilos Gross wheight) 
September 2002 to February 2010 
 
 
Source: FNE, on the basis of information gathered during investigation Rol N° 1752-10 FNE 
 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
8 
 
20. The Defendant Producing Companies have managed that their joint production does not vary 
significantly in relation to the agreed projected quantities to be sold in the national market; have 
implemented the adjustments in a coordinated way through APA; and confronted with 
unforeseen situations in the original projection, using the market power that the agreement 
conferred them, have coordinated to determine the offer of chicken in the country, always on the 
basis of maintaining the market shares agreed upon in the cartel. 
 
21. Furthermore, since the year 2006, the Defendant Producing Companies have not exceeded the 
projected quantities by APA, limiting their production and respecting the agreed market quotas, 
therefore sustaining the cartel´s stability. 
 
 
22. In fact, on March 1
st
 of 2006, the Defendant agreed the last projected sales for that year, in 
accordance to which 387.298 tons should be sold
11
. At the end of that year, the amounts sold 
reached the sum of 385.624 tons, only a 0, 43% lower to the original projection. 
 
23. On the other hand, for 2007, according to the projection sent by APA on November 20
th
 2006, 
404.421 tons should have been sold. By the conclusion of that year, APA’s sales reached 
370.035 tons, an 8,50% lower than the originally projected. Such difference was strongly 
influenced by the fire that affected San Vicente the main chicken slaughterhouse of the country, 
at the end of 2006
12
. In fact, in January 2007 the Defendant met to adjust the loads, -after 
which, and having received information on future production of each of the Defendant 
Producing Companies- APA sent a modified figure, corresponding to 3.300.000 weekly units. In 
that opportunity, the quantity of units to be loaded by each company was also determined, 
triggering even a complaint by one of the producing companies, given that the loads did not 
correspond no the quota previously agreed upon. 
 
11
 Regarding this annual projection, it must be indicated that it didn’t consider the first day of 2006. This, 
given the fact that the monitoring and accounting of this market is weekly, therefore, the annual projection 
report considers a total of 52 weeks. According to the above mentioned, January the 1
st
 of 2006 would be 
part of week 52 of 2005. The quantities sold in 2006 were also accounted without considering the first day 
of the year, for the same reasons. 
12
 On November 26, the Agrosuper’s plant located in San Vicente de Tagua Tagua, in the VI Region, caught 
fire and was completely destroyed. This plant was the main slaughterhouse of the country, representing, at 
that time, more than half of Agrosuper’s capacity for slaughtering chickens. It was rebuilt and put in 
operation after 10 months. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
9 
 
 
24. In the case of 2008, the Defendant Producing Companies agreed –in November 2007 and 
through APA - two projections of demand, on the basis of two different scenarios, the amounts 
to be sold being between 390.288 and 401.051 tons, which meant a load between 3.350.000 
and 3.450.000 weekly units, disaggregating the information related to each company, in 
accordance to the agreed participation. 
 
25. However, as a consequence of the increase of the cost of the inputs that took place that year, 
the President of APA requested its associates, in various occasions, to adjust the agreement, 
reducing loads. 
 
 
26. In fact, at the beginnings of January 2008, the President of APA reminded de Defendant 
Production Companies that, given the costs of inputs, it was important not to exceed the 
suggested loads in November, in order for the price to fluctuate between the estimated values, 
 
pointing out as well, that it was necessary to establish a policy to export or freeze chicken legs. 
Also, he requested the programmed loads for the first 10 weeks of that year to be sent, in order 
to determine if it was necessary or not to make production adjustments. 
 
27. The following day, the Defendant Producing Companies complied with the request, informing 
their future production. In this sense, the declarations of APA´s President contained in an e mail 
sent to the general managers of the Defendant Producing Companies is illustrative -“too well 
behaved to be “normal” “children”- given that on the basis of the programmed loads informed by 
them, he had verified that the where within the said parameters and where consistent with the 
agreed participation quotas. 
 
28. January had not concluded, when APA’s President requested de Defendant Producing 
Companies that, given the situation of the grain and red meat markets, they lower their loads to 
3.350.000 weekly units, a lower amount than both estimated projections. In February, once 
again, APA´s President instructed a reduction in the production, indicating the companies they 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
10 
 
should slaughter less than 3.250.000 weekly units, pointing out, once more and expressly, the 
number of loads that corresponded to each of the Defendant Production Companies, according 
to their quota. 
 
29. As a consequence of these requests, in the month of March of the present year, the projection 
was modified, reducing the annual projected amount to 386.205 tons, that is, 3.260.000 weekly 
units. However, the requests of reducing production by APA´s President continued. 
 
30. Precisely, in the beginning of June, APA´s President recommended Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don 
Pollo, not to load during that month more than 3.250.000 units, figure which –in his words- is 
“fractioned” in the sum of 1.980.000, 1.010.000 and 260.000, respectively, and that it would be 
revised by the end of the month. In fact, by the middle of the month, given the existent market 
situation in the moment, APA´s President indicated that they should lower their production to 
3.000.000 weekly units, adjusting loads by company to the abovementioned participation 
percentages. 
 
 
31. As a consequence of these adjustments, the quantities sold during 2008 reached only 359.570 
tons, figure which is a 6,90% lower to the projected in March that year. In fact, the agreed 
limitations of production by the Defendant where so many during this period, that the quantity 
sold was a 2,83% less than in 2007, year in which the capacity of production was diminished 
during several months, given that the main slaughterhouse of chicken in the country -
Agrosuper’s in San Vicente- was inoperative. 
 
32. For the year 2009, APA´s President sent -on December 5
th
 2008- the correspondent annual 
projection, which established a sale of 369.540 tons, figure lower than the previous year and 
even slightly below sales in 2007. It must be underlined that, in the same terms as in previous 
occasions, APA´s President indicated the values for the weekly loads, starting from the 
abovementioned date, for each of the Defendant Producing Companies. 
 
33. As in previous years, the projection for 2009 was slightly diminished in March of that year, the 
amount of 363.321 tons had to be sold, which implied an average of 3.400.000 weekly units. 
Certainly, the FNE is aware that at least in April and July of that year, the Defendantmet with 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
11 
 
the aim of discussing the production and the adjustments that had to be made, agreeing on 
several measures, amongst which they included: “eliminating discounts”, “freezing more”, 
“loading less than 3.200” and “kill chicks”, as will be proved during these proceedings. 
 
34. Finally, the sales in the year 2009 reached the total of 356.836 tons, only a 1,78% lower to the 
projected on March of the same year. 
 
35. In the same year 2009, and due to a new sanitary regulation
13
, aimed at allowing consumers to 
know the quantities of salt and water contained in their products, the Defendants agreed on the 
labeling of the percentage of marinated
14
 that the chicken meat of each one of them would 
have. In fact, the decision of the companies of labeling their packages “contains up to a 15% of 
marinated” -which is the one they currently use- was taken jointly, avoiding the differentiation of 
their product for consumers. 
 
36. For the year 2010, the projected sales of APA where sent by an analyst of the mentioned trade 
association to the general and commercial managers of the Defendant Producing Companies, 
on December 7
th
 2009. The mentioned document projected the amount to be sold by all the 
companies belonging to APA, 405.150 tons during the 52 weeks of the year. 
 
37. In July of that year, at the express request of APA´s Directory, the projection was estimated 
once again with the 2010 data, reducing the tons to be sold. This way, in the 51 week sales 
amounted to 359.278 tons, figure that was lower to the projected only in a 1,38%. 
 
38. Finally, for the year 2011, the Defendant Producing Companies once again projected their 
sales. For this purpose, the manager of studies and marketing of APA called de general and 
commercial managers of the Defendant Producing Companies to a meeting for December 2
nd
 
2010, in order to observe the results of the mentioned estimations. 
 
39. In consequence, HON. Court, there is evidence that during several years the Defendant 
Producing Companies –under the coordination of APA- have agreed: limiting production, 
controlling the quantities produced and offered in the Chilean market and have assigned market 
quotas amongst each other of the production and commercialization of the product inside of the 
mentioned market. 
 
13
 Imposed by Decreto Supremo N°106, of December 18
th
 2008, of the Ministry of Health. 
14
 The marinated consists of a technological process by which a solution of water adobos (marinated) and 
additives are added to the meat, improving its flavor and increasing its weight. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
12 
 
 
 
40. All of the above mentioned only reaffirms the veracity of the general manager of Don Pollo, in 
an interview published in a national newspaper, that requires no more explaining: 
 
“Why fight with Super Pollo, it is better to coexist. As it is said: if you have a powerful enemy, 
you better join him. With Ariztía and Agrosuper we have a very strong trade association, 
through which we have reached agreements with respect to what corresponds to each one in 
the market. We will not get burned for a 1% more”
15
. 
 
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFECTED MARKET 
 
41. The chicken industry is, and has been during the last decade, the main producer of meat in the 
country, having produced during 2010 almost 500 thousand tons. Additionally, it is the most 
consumed in Chile, representing in 2010, around 39% of the total consumption of meat. Table 
N°1 presents the production and internal consumption of the different types of meat for the 
mentioned year. 
 
Table N°1 
Production and Consumption of Meats (Tons) 2010 
 
 
Chickens Pigs 
Veal 
calves 
Turkeys 
Production 
Ton. 498.772 498.324 191.302 89.884 
% 39% 39% 15% 7% 
Internal 
consumption 
Ton. 482.631 379.910 319.264 66.242 
% 39% 30% 26% 5% 
Source: FNE, based on information gathered during the course of investigation Rol 1752-10 FNE 
 
 
 
42. The Defendant Producing companies concentrated more than de 92% of the national 
production of chicken destined to the internal market
16
. In this market only two more companies 
participate (Codipra and Santa Rosa), whose production is small and destined to specific niche 
markets. 
 
 
15
 Interview published in El Mercurio, Revista del Campo, of April 16 2007 headlined: “Don Pollo will now 
fatten pigs”. 
16
 According to figures corresponding to the period between January-October 2010. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
13 
 
43. The leading company in the market is Agrosuper
17
, with a 56% market share based on sales in 
the national market, measured in kilos. Created in 1960, this company owns two slaughtering 
houses and has average sales -for 2010- of more than 18.490 tons a month of chicken, 
commercializing its products through a distribution net integrated by 28 terminals located in the 
main cities of Chile. Agrosuper is also the main producer of food in the country, with important 
market shares in the markets of pig, turkey, and salmon meat, operating other markets as well 
such as sausages, wines and oils. 
 
44. On the other hand Ariztía
18
 created in 1936, holds a 29% market share, being the second player 
in the market, with an average monthly sale -for 2010- of 9.670 tons. The company owns two 
chicken slaughtering houses in the central zone and one in the north of the country, and 
commercializes its products in the whole country. The company also participates in other food 
markets, such as turkey, sausages and eggs, amongst others. 
 
45. Finally Don Pollo
19
, with a market share of 8%, initiated its activities in 1986 and now occupies 
the third place in terms of production in the industry. This company operates with only one plant, 
with sales -for 2010- of 2.560 tons a month
20
, and commercializes its products in different 
regions throughout the country. Also, the company produces pig meat, sausages and eggs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17
 Among the subsidary companies of Agrosuper, are the following:: Comercializadora de Alimentos Lo 
Miranda Ltda., Agrocomercial Los Castaños Ltda., Alimentos Agrosuper Ltda., Agro Tantehue Ltda., Agrícola y 
Servicios Arenilla Ltda., Alimentos Arenilla Ltda., Faenadora Arenilla Ltda., Faenadora Rosario Ltda., 
Faenadora Lo Miranda Ltda., Faenadora San Vicente Ltda., Agrícola Super Ltda., Agrocomercial AS Ltda., 
Agrosuper Comercializadora de Alimentos Ltda., Distribuidora Oriente Ltda., Frigorífico San Cristóbal Ltda., 
Elaboradora de Alimentos Doñihue Ltda., Asesoría y Proyectos SP Ltda., Agrosuper Servicios Corporativos 
Ltda., AS Logistic Ltda., Agroforestal Corneche Ltda., y Puerto Las Losas S.A. 
18
 Among the subsidary companies of Ariztía, are: the following Agrícola Ariztía Limitada, Agrícola Tarapacá 
Ltda., Agroexportadora e Importadora Ltda., Agroindustrial Arica Ltda., Agroindustrial El Paico Ltda., Ariztía 
Comercial Limitada, Ariztía Europa, Ariztía Exportaciones Ltda., Ariztía Registros de Marcas y Cía., Comercial 
Tácora Ltda., Concordia Alimentos Balanceados Ltda., Distribuidora Diper Ltda., Industrial Leyda Ltda., 
Industrial Ochagavía Ltda., Rentas Cerro Talami Ltda., Servicios de Venta Ltda., Servicios Agrosistemas Ltda., 
Servicios de Mantención Ltda., Servicios de Ventas Ltda., Servicios y Asesorías Seas Ltda., Tecnología y 
Alimentos Ltda. 
19
 Among the related companies of Don Pollo is Agrícola Chorombo S.A. 
20
 The market shares indicated in this and the two preceding paragraphs, do not consider the imports of 
third parties different to the Defendant Producing Companies. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
14 
 
 
 
46. Inthe following Table, the essential characteristics of each of the main players in the market are 
summarized: 
Table N°2 
Description of the Main Poultry Companies 
 Company Agrosuper Ariztía Don Pollo 
 Labels 
Super Pollo 
Ariztía Don Pollo Pancho Pollo 
Pollos King 
 Year of initiation of activities 1960 1931 1986 
Ranking in Production and National Sales 1° 2° 3° 
Income from Exports (MM$ 2009)
 21
 797.217 218.846 51.102 
 Market Share 
(National Production in Kilos destined to 
the internal market, January-October 
2010) 
167MM 
(52%) 
101MM (32%) 25MM (8%) 
 Market Share 
(National Sales in Kilos 2010) 
222 MM 
(56%) 
117MM (29%) 31MM (8%) 
 Market Share 
(National Sales in Kilos, including imports, 
2010) 
(49%) (26%) (7%) 
 Number of slaughtering plants 2 3 1 
Other products commercialized 
Sausages, 
Pig, Turkey 
and Salmon 
Sausages, Pig, 
Turkey and 
eggs 
Sausages, 
Pig and Eggs 
 
47. The Chilean industry of chicken meat, characterized by vertical integration, presents various 
stages, which include: reproduction; loading of the eggs into incubators and incubation; 
breeding or fattening of poultry; industrial processing or slaughtering; and finally 
commercialization and distribution of the product. 
 
48. The production process begins with the so called “reproducing poultry or mothers”, which are 
the ones that lay eggs. The actual production of chickens is initiated by loading
22
 in the 
incubators the amounts the companies determine. From the incubation plants, after a period of 
21 days, the birds with one day are extracted, “chicks”, which are then sent to the breeding or 
 
21
 The FNE does not have the definitive financial statements of the Defendant Producing Companies for the 
year 2010. 
22
 In this chapter, the term “loads” is used in its technical sense, meaning the inclusion of eggs in the 
incubation machines. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
15 
 
 
 
 
49. fattening units for around 45 days. After this stage, the poultry pass to the slaughtering plants, 
where the slaughtering and processing takes place -supposedly also the packaging and 
labeling as well-. During this process, cuts and selections are made of the sub products that will 
be commercialized, being the highest sold the whole chicken, the chicken leg and the breast; 
the meat is also marinated at this stage. Finally, they proceed to the commercialization and later 
distribution of the chicken, mainly in its fresh format for the national market. 
 
50. In the national market, chicken meat is commercialized through three channels: (i) supermarket 
channel, where the main players are Walmart S.A., Cencosud S.A. and SMU S.A; (ii) traditional 
channel or coverage: composed mainly by butcheries, neighborhood stores, small business and 
minimarkets; and (iii) the industrial channel, that corresponds to clients that buy chicken meat to 
manufacture their own products or offer their services, including the restaurant and catering 
services (HORECA)
23
 and the companies that elaborate sausages. 
 
51. The supermarket is the main channel of sales, concentrating around the 45%-47% of sales in 
the national market. The highest sold products are: whole chicken leg bulk (58%), followed by 
the whole chicken with giblets (25%), and the whole breast bulk (17%)
24
. 
 
52. In second place, in the traditional or coverage market, around 31%-33% of the chicken meat is 
commercialized, and it is greatly atomized, having a great number of players. The most relevant 
products, in terms of sales, are the whole chicken with giblets (53%), followed by the whole 
chicken leg bulk (33%) and whole breast bulk (14%). 
 
 
 
23
 HORECA comprehends clients that integrate commercial areas such as hotels, restaurants, and catering. 
24
 To obtain the percentage that this commercialization channel represents, as well as the ones described in 
the following two paragraphs, the total sales of Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo was used as a proxy in 
relation to the daily transactions exclusively of the main cuts of chicken of these companies (whole chicken 
with giblets, whole breast bulk, and leg bulk), corresponding to the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, according to 
the information presented by the Defendant Producing Companies. As to the classification of the products 
that corresponded to each cut, only the information of 2010 was considered. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
16 
 
53. Finally, the portion of production of chicken meat that is sold to the industrial channel represents 
around the 20%-25% of the total sales, and its main product is MSC
25
, a paste elaborated with 
input from chicken that is used for the production of sausages. 
 
54. In the case at hand, the relevant market consists in the production, commercialization and 
wholesale distribution of fresh chicken meat in all the national territory, given the specific 
characteristics of chicken meat, that distinguish it from other potential substitutes
26
. 
 
55. In fact, chicken meat does not have any close substitutes. As can be reflected in the following 
table, chicken meat constitutes a separate market from other meats, mainly due to two 
elements: (i) its components and (ii) its sale price. 
 
Table N° 3 
Analysis of the substitutability between different types of meat 
 
Chicken Pig Turkey Veal 
1) Nutritional 
Characteristics 
Cholesterol (mg):75 
Cholesterol 
(mg):91 
Cholesterol (mg):85 Cholesterol (mg):89 
Protein: 23,3 Protein: 25,4 Protein: 28,5 Protein: 30,3 
Iron (mg): 0,8-2,6 Iron (mg): 1,1-1,6 Iron (mg): 1,6-2,3 Iron (mg): 1,3-5,5 
Zinc (mg): 2,1 Zinc (mg): 2,9 Zinc (mg): 3,2 Zinc (mg): 4,9 
2) Average price ( per real 
kilogram, 2010) 
1024.49 1.139.78 1.578.21 1.665.70 
(1) Source: INTA Universidad de Chile
27
 y Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad Católica
28
. 
(2) Source: FNE based on information gathered during the course of investigation Rol 1752-10 FNE. 
 
56. There are nutritional characteristics that differentiate red and white meat. This way, in 
comparative terms, red meat has a higher level of iron, Purines
29
 and fat
30
. 
 
25
 Mechanically shred chicken. 
26
 The FNE considers as relevant market that of a product or a group o products for which there are no close 
enough substitutes, in a geographical area in which it is produced, bought or sold, and in a timeframe in 
which it is likely that it may exercise its market power. Internal Horizontal Merger Guidelines of the FNE, 
available at: http://www.fne.cl. 
27
 Document by proffessor Verónica Cornejo; 
available at: 
http://www.sopraval.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1283805838inta_articulo_pavo.pdf. 
In relation to colesterol and proteind see, table 1, page 6. 
28
 Document available in: 
http://www.uc.cl/agronomia/c_extension/Revista/Ediciones/18/opinion.pdf 
 In relation to iron and zinc, see table N° 3, page 4. 
http://www.fne.cl/
http://www.sopraval.cl/wp-content/files_mf/1283805838inta_articulo_pavo.pdf
http://www.uc.cl/agronomia/c_extension/Revista/Ediciones/18/opinion.pdf
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
17 
 
 
57. Additionally, from the point of view of preferences of consumers, an increase in the 
consumption of white meats has been observed recently, in detriment of the red, due to, 
amongst others, the following factors: 
 
 More efforts by the poultry producers to reduce the search costs and enhance 
the perception of attributes of this type of meat. 
 
 Consumers’changes in life habits due to modernization and globalization. 
 
 An increasing tendency to replace red meat, given the fact that they are 
perceived as harmful for the body in the long term
31
. 
 
 
 
58. On the other hand, an analysis of wholesale prices demonstrates that there are significant 
differences between the different types of meat. In average, for the year 2010, the price of 
turkey was in real terms, $562,72 per kilo more expensive than chicken meat, figure that implies 
a price which is 54,9% higher; as for pig and veal meat they where respectively $115,29 
(11,3%) and $641,21 (62,6%) per kilo more expensive than chicken meat. 
 
59. This way, the correlation coefficients of the variations of the prices of each of these types of 
meat, test commonly used to verify substitution, are low or even negative. As it is observed in 
the following table, the coefficient of correlation between chicken and turkey is of 0,16; while the 
coefficient of correlation between chicken-pig and chicken-veal, is of -0,07 in each case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29
 Substances that come from the metabolism of the proteins and are transformed into uric acid in the body. 
30
 Specially saturated fat and cholesterol. 
31
 “Characterization of the Demand fo Bovine Meat and Evaluation of Substitutes” Study 
Elaborated for ODEPA by Intelligent Data. January 2007, pages 8-9. Available at: 
http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/publicaciones/Estudio_Demanda_Carne_Bovina.pdf. 
http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/publicaciones/Estudio_Demanda_Carne_Bovina.pdf
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table N°4 
Coefficient of the Correlation between different types of meat 
 
 
 
 
Source: FNE based on information gathered during the course of investigation Rol 1752-10 FNE. 
 
60. Al the above mentioned, HON. Court, proves that the chicken meat constitutes a separate 
relevant market from other meats. Moreover, diverse compared case law have ruled with the 
same reasoning, considering the different types of meat as belonging to different markets
32
. 
 
61. Now, in relation to the incidence of the imported meat in the relevant market, it must be pointed 
out that it has been unable to discipline the coordinated behavior of the Defendant Producing 
Companies. The foregoing, in spite of the fact that from 2004, inside APA and between the 
Defendant Producing Companies, there was already worry regarding imports. 
 
62. Currently, these have not yet reached a significant market share, since according to the facts 
gathered by the FNE; the substitution between imported and national products is limited, mainly, 
due to the commercialization format of products and the need to develop a distribution channel. 
 
63. This way, as to the commercialization format, it must be stressed that the importation of chicken 
to Chile is done almost exclusively in frozen format; on the other hand, the great majority of the 
national production commercialized internally, corresponds to fresh chicken. 
 
64. It is the very producers of chicken and national players, who point out that clients prefer the 
fresh product, since they associate the purchase of this product to a recent elaboration, 
whereas the frozen would have been elaborated a long time before, an element which is 
 
32
 See for example: Case Nº IV/M.1313 Danish Crown/Vestijyske Slagterier European Commission; Decision 
N° 658, Tegel Foods Limited and Brinks Group Of Companies, of the Commerce Commision New Zeland; 
Decisión ME/3379/07, Tulip Limited of George Adams & SonsLimited and George Adams & Sons (Holdings) 
Limited, OFT; y Decisión N° 601/17.07.2008 of the Commisison for the Protection of Competiton of Bulgaria 
Chicken Pig Turkey Veal 
1 -0,07 0,16 -0,07 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
19 
 
incorporated in clients’ decision making process. For them, all things considered, the fresh 
product is better and healthier than the frozen
33
. 
 
65. In the same way, they mention that fresh chicken has a better texture and taste compared to 
frozen, this would entail that the imported product is considered as inferior. 
 
66. Ratifying the abovementioned, a report by an external consultant commissioned by APA in 
September 2008
34
, pointed out: “the previous evidence suggests that the substitution between 
Argentinean chicken and Chilean is far from being perfect” adding: “an explosive rise of imports 
does not occur simply because the local consumer does not perceive Argentinean chicken as a 
perfect substitute for Chilean chicken”. 
 
67. On the other hand, the development of a distribution channel –in the relevant market in these 
proceedings- also explains the low penetration levels of imports. If some degree of substitution 
would be claimed to exist between the imported product and the national, a new entrant should 
be able to distribute its product along the country, and only in that way would it exert competitive 
pressure on the Defendant Producing Companies. 
 
68. Notwithstanding, having the conviction that both products cannot be considered close 
substitutes, and that the cartelization of the Defendant Producing Companies originated several 
years before imports had any participation in the national market, the FNE, in order to quantify 
the power and the market concentration reached by the cartel, will carry out two analysis of 
market concentration, one in which the imported chicken meat will be included, and a second 
analysis that only considers the relevant market of these proceedings. So this HON. Court can 
verify with absolute certainty, that even including the imported chicken meat, the coordinated 
actions carried out by the Defendant Producing Companies, do not find a strong competitor in 
imports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33
 The FNE took several statements from different market players –importers, representatives of the 
traditional channel, supermarkets, amongst others-,all of which affirm that the frozen format is not 
perceived by consumers in the same way as the fresh. 
34
 September 2008: “Demand Projection of Chicken Meat in Chile” by Jorge Quiroz. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
20 
 
69. Firstly, as can be observed in the following table, in 2010, without considering imports by third 
parties different from the Defendant Producing Companies, these concentrated jointly a 93% of 
sales (Agrosuper had a market share of 56%; Ariztía 29%; and Don Pollo an 8%). In the second 
scenario, including imports by third parties – which represented near a 12% of the total sales in 
the market-
35
, the Defendant Producing Companies still hold 82% of the total. 
 
Table N° 5 
Market Share and index of concentration in sales 
 (Millions of kilos 2010) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: FNE, based on information gathered during investigation Rol 1752-10 FNE. 
 
 
 
70. As can be seen, this is a highly concentrated market, from both proposed scenarios; the HHI
36
 
index exceeds by far the threshold considered by the FNE in order to determine the existence of 
competition risks
37
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
35
 It must be taken into account that part of the imports are used as productive input for the elaboration of 
final products that are not commercialized as chicken meat (for example: sausages), situation that may 
generate a higher level of concentration in the market. 
36
 As this Hon. Court knows, the HHI Herfindhal Hirschman concentration index that is calculated by 
summing the square market shares. 
37
Internal HorizontalGuideline FNE Available at: http://www.fne.cl. 
 
Company 
Market Share 
without imports 
(%) 
HHI without imports 
Market Share with 
imports (%) 
HHI with imports 
Agrosuper 56% 
4.070 
49% 
3.293 
Ariztía 29% 26% 
Don Pollo 8% 7% 
Santa Rosa 5% 4.5% 
Codipra 2% 1.5% 
Importaciones 12% 
Total 100% 100% 
http://www.fne.cl/
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
21 
 
 
71. It must be stressed, on the other hand, that the cartel has benefited from the unfavorable entry 
conditions in this industry, to which, at least in the last 20 years, no new participants have 
entered. 
 
72. On the contrary, what has happened in the last decades is the concentration of the industry. 
During the 90´s there were eight chicken meat producing companies in the country, whereas 
today there are only five. This reduction of players was produced mainly by several mergers. 
Pollos King was acquired by Agrosuper in 2000, on the other hand Kútulas and La Cartuja, by 
Don Pollo in 2001. 
 
73. Also, and as will be proved during these proceedings, the main difficulties for entry in this 
market are originated by economies of scale, both in the production and in the distribution, 
vertical integration of the national poultry business
38
, costs, and the extended time needed to 
fulfill the environmental and sanitary norms to operate incubation, breeding and slaughtering of 
animals. 
 
74. As this HON. Court will appreciate, the cartel that motivates the present accusation emerges in 
an industry with the following characteristics: homogeneous products, few players, high 
concentration, low competition with imported products and unfavorable entry conditions. 
 
 
III. THE LAW 
 
75. Both the case law and legislation recognize that collusion is the conduct that deserves the 
greatest reproach from a competition point of view
39
. 
 
 
 
38
 That could restrict the access to input to potential entrants or gain access to them in disadvantaged 
conditions. 
39
 It is so recognized by our case law in Sentencia 94/2010“FNE against Transportes Central Ltda. And others: 
“That, secondly, as to the gravity of the conduct, this Tribunal considers collusion to be one of the most 
reproachable conducts for competition law, even more so when it affects the functioning of the market in 
services that are essential for the community” 
 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
22 
 
 
I.1 The Defendant Producing Companies have infringed article 3° of DL 211 
76. The conduct by the Defendant, in the case at hand constitutes an infringement of competition 
laws. The legal description of this illicit behavior in its relevant part proscribes: 
 
“Whoever executes or enters into any act, agreement or convention, either individually or collectively, 
which hinders, restricts or impedes free competition, or which tends to produce such effects, shall be 
penalized with the measures indicated in Article 26 hereof, notwithstanding any preventive, corrective 
or restrictive measures that could be ordered in each case, with regard to said acts, agreements or 
conventions.” 
 
77. As your honor knows, the quoted article adds examples of facts, acts or conventions that, 
amongst others, are considered to impede, restrict or hinder free competition or tend to produce 
such effects, in the following terms: 
 
“a) Express or tacit agreements between competitors, or concerted practices between them, 
which confer to them market power and which consist of fixing sale prices, purchase prices, 
or other commercial terms and conditions, restricting output, allocating territories or market 
quotas, excluding competitors, or affecting the results of tender processes (bid rigging).” 
 
78. From these dispositions three necessary conditions derive to affirm that there is a cartel all of 
which are present in this case: (i) concurrence of wills between competitors; (ii) that such 
concurrence of wills has as an object restricting, affecting or eliminating competition in the 
relevant affected market, or at least, tends to produce those effects; and (iii) that the mentioned 
agreement confers on them sufficient market power to produce the previously mentioned 
effect
40
. 
 
 
 
 
40
 Sentencia N° 112 del TDLC, 22 de June 2011, “FNE against Radio Valparaíso Ltda. and others ”, 66. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
23 
 
 
 
 
a) Concurrence of wills between the Defendant Producing Companies 
 
79. The agreement that motivates the present action refers to the limitation of production and 
assignment of market quotas. The Defendant Producing Companies have executed the 
agreement throughout time, by the coordinated exchange of sensitive, strategic and detailed 
information. 
 
 
b) The concurrence of wills between the Defendant Producing Companies has as its object 
restricting; affecting or eliminating competition in the relevant affected market, or at least 
tends to produce such effects 
 
80. Precisely, the cartel at hand has allowed: 
a) Limiting production; and 
b) Assigning market quotas to each of the three Defendant Producing Companies 
 
81. Against this background, APA has played an essential role in the cartel, since it has facilitated 
its implementation, stability and success, coordinating and monitoring the behavior of the 
Defendant Producing Companies. APA has gathered, processed and sent to Agrosuper, Ariztía 
and Don Pollo strategic, sensitive and detailed information that has allowed them to adopt 
decisions in harmony with the cartel, impairing competition. 
 
c) The agreement has conferred the Defendant Producing Companies enough market 
power to produce the abovementioned effect 
 
82. Coordinating their behavior, under APA, the Defendant Producing Companies, as previously 
pointed out, manage to control more than 92% of the national chicken production destined to 
the internal market and more than 93% of its commercialization in Chile, in a market where 
there are no appropriate substitutes for chicken meat and where imports do not represent a 
competitor capable of disciplining the cartel members. All of the above demonstrates the 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
24 
 
success of the cartel, reflected in the market power they have obtained, thanks to their joint 
action. 
I.2. Requested Sanction 
83. As your honor knows, for the application of fines, DL 211 establishes certain circumstances that 
must be considered by this Hon. Court in the determination of the fine. Given the relevance of 
this case, the FNE will refer in detail to two: the gravity of the conduct and the economic benefit 
obtained by the cartel members. These circumstances justify, by themselves, that this Hon. 
Court applies the maximum fine established in the law to each of the Defendant Producing 
Companies, this is 30.000 UTA. Note by the translator: Up to an amount equivalent to 30 thousand annual tax units 
(UTA). The UTA is a currency legally defined for tax purposes. It corresponds to the UTM’s value in the last month of the 
commercial year, multiplied by 12. UTM value at April 4 2012: $39.570 Chilean pesos. 
 
a) Gravity of the conduct 
 
84. An important factor established by DL 211 for the calculation of the fine, is the gravity of the 
conduct of the perpetrator. In this sense, as it has been pointed out, the evidence of the case, 
national and international case law and the doctrine have been consistently recognized that 
collusion or cartels constitute the most serious violation, from a competition law perspective. 
 
85. Moreover, the cartel has had direct influence in a product that forms part of the basic 
consumption basket of the majority of Chilean homes. It is evident, therefore, that the effects of 
the agreement reached betweenthe Defendants are highly prejudicial and that it possesses a 
social dimension which is particularly relevant. 
 
b) Economic benefit obtained 
 
86. The Defendant Producing Companies have implemented for years, an agreement aimed at 
limiting the production of chicken meat in Chile and allocate market quotas. 
 
 
 
 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
25 
 
87. The economic benefits that the Defendant Producing Companies obtained during one decade 
through their illicit behavior greatly exceed the maximum amount of fines established by the 
legislator. 
I.3. APA´s Behavior 
88. Just as the legislation and case law provide, trade associations must comply with competition 
rules
41
. 
 
89. This way, just as it has been exposed in this presentation, the highest executives of APA, 
amongst other actions, requested, received and delivered sensitive information that allowed the 
functioning of the cartel, projected the quantities to be produced and monitored the actual 
produced quantities, using as a basis the market shares previously defined amongst them. 
 
90. The formation and sustainment of the cartel integrated by the Defendant Producing Companies 
has been possible due to coordination by APA. The conversations and communications 
regarding quantity projections and future strategies of business carried out under the trade 
associations, and orchestrated by it, lead to agreements or understandings that violate 
competition law. 
 
91. In this sense, APA´s behavior is absolutely contrary to what may be expected from an entity of 
this nature in a competitive frame. Trade associations offer a number and by all means 
legitimate, opportunities of encounter for market players that compete amongst each other, as 
long, and only if, competition law is not violated. 
 
92. For all the above reasons, APA should be condemned to pay the fine that is indicated our 
petitions. Also, given de deviation from the general objective for which the reunion of 
competitors is allowed in the frame of competition, and the fundamental roll that it played in the 
creation and sustainment of the cartel, it is appropriate that the Hon. Court declares the 
mentioned trade association dissolved. 
 
 
 
 
41
 Sentencia N° 74/2008 of September 2 2008, “FNE against AM Patagonia S.A. and others”, Sentencia N° 
82/2009 of January 22 2009, “FNE against Asociación Gremial de Buses Interbus and others” y Sentencia N° 
102/10 of August 11 2010 “FNE against Asociación Gremial de Dueños de Mini Buses Agmital”, all dictated 
by the TDLC and confirmed by the Supreme Court. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
26 
 
In consequence, Hon. Court, given that -as it will be proved during the course of 
proceedings- the three Defendant Producing Companies, coordinated under APA, have 
infringed article 3° of DL 211, by celebrating and executing an agreement between competitors, 
consistent in limiting production, controlling and monitoring the quantity of chicken produced 
and offered in the national market, and assigning market quotas in the market for production 
and commercialization of the product, for more than a decade, there is no choice but to apply 
the sanctions requested in our petitions. 
 
WHEREFORE, under the merit of the exposed, and in accordance to the provisions laid 
out in articles 1°, 3°, 18, 19 and following, 26 and 39 of DL 211, and other legal provisions citied 
and applicable, 
 TO THE Hon. COMPETITION COURT I REQUEST: 
To the receive the following action against Agricola Agrosuper S.A., Empresas Ariztía S.A., Agricola 
Don Pollo Limitada and Asociación de Productores Avícolas de Chile A.G., already individualized, 
initiate proceedings, and, in short, adjudge and decree that the Defendants, themselves and/or by their 
related (translator note: persons or companies), have executed and celebrated the conducts hereby 
accused, in contravention of article 3° of DL 211, in consequence: 
1) The immediate cease of these practices should be ordered, prohibit the Defendant 
from renewing their unlawful agreements, directly or indirectly, by themselves or 
through related persons, under the warning of incurring in recidivism. 
2) The imposition to Agricola Agrosuper S.A. of a fine amounting to 30.000 (thirty 
thousand) Annual Tax Units, or the amount that this Hon. Court deems appropriate 
according to law. 
3) The imposition to Empresas Ariztía S.A. of a fine amounting to 30.000 (thirty 
thousand) Annual Tax Units, or the amount that this Hon. Court deems appropriate 
according to law. 
4) The imposition to Don Pollo Limitada of a fine amounting to 30.000 (thirty thousand) 
Annual Tax Units, or the amount that this Hon. Court deems appropriate according to 
law. 
5) The imposition to Asociacion de Productores Avícolas A.G. of a fine amounting to 
20.000 (twenty thousand) Annual Tax Units, or the amount that this Hon. Court 
deems appropriate according to law. 
6) Order the dissolution of Associacion de Productores Avícolas de Chile A.G. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
27 
 
7) Order the Defendant to bear procedural costs. 
FIRST: Hon. Court, we request the following instruments be considered accompanied as means 
of proof, requesting the confidentiality of those indicated, since they contain sensitive 
information from its owners and/or they contain information which is commercial and strategic of 
their companies, since its knowledge by third parties may cause serious detriments to the 
economic and/or professional interests of the people or companies from which they originate: 
 
a. Public: 
 
1) Copy of the interview published in the newspaper El Mercurio, to Mr. Ramón Cobarrubias 
Matte, of April 16
th
 2007, in the magazine Revista del Campo. 
 
b. Confidential: 
 
2) Copy of e mail from APA to Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo of January 10
th
 2008. 
3) Copy of e mail from Ariztía to APA of January 10
th
 2008. 
4) Copy of e mail from APA to Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo of January 11
th
 2008. 
5) Copy of e mail from Agrosuper to APA of January 11
th
 2008. 
6) Copy of e mail from Don Pollo to APA of January 11
th
 2008. 
7) Copy of e mail from Agrosuper to APA of January 11
th
 2008; and 
8) Copy of e mail from APA to Agrosuper, Ariztía and Don Pollo of January 11
th
 2008; 
 
 
SECOND: Hon. Court, giving strict compliance to the provisions of Auto Acordado N°11/2008, this 
part herby accompanies the public version of the documents whose confidentiality is requested. 
 
THRID: I hereby request the Hon. Court to acknowledge, that for the purposes of notifying the 
present charges and all the tasks which require the presence of an attester, and notwithstanding 
the right of this party to revoke the designation in any moment, I appoint the following process 
bailiff: 
1. Miss Juana Ortiz Madrid, domiciled in Bandera N° 465, office 704, city of Santiago. 
This is an unofficial independent translation 
 
28 
 
2. Miss Rosa Carmona Monje, domiciled in Av. Brasil N° 850, office 308, Rancagua. 
3. Mr. Jorge Reyes Muñoz, domiciled in Salesianos N° 1179, office 2, San Miguel. 
4. Miss Cecilia Arap Miranda, domiciled in en Merced N° 982, office 1, Melipilla. 
 
 
FOURTH: I hereby request that the Hon. Court acknowledges that my powers to represent the 
Economic National Competition Bureau (FNE) are attested in Decreto Supremo N° 211, of August 
4
th
 2010, of my appointment as Economic National Prosecutor, authorized copy of which is under 
the custody of the Secretary of this Court. 
 
 Also, I hereby request this Hon. Court to acknowledge, that in my condition of qualified attorney, 
with the abovementioned address, I personally assume the representation of the FNE in these 
proceedings, and delegate powers of attorney to the attorneys of the FNE Mr. Cristián R. ReyesCid, Mdm. Vanessa Facusse Andreucci, Mr. Victor Snatelices Rios and Mr. Francisco Bórquez 
Electorat, qualified attorneys, domiciled in the same address, with whom I may act jointly and 
separately, and who sign next to me in approval.