①With regard to the application of Article 20-2 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization, if the enterprise has, within 10 years counting back from the day on which a disposition listed in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in a case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-2 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (or, where such a disposition was not carried out, within 10 years counting back from the day on which the enterprise received advance notification of the violation), received a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), or has, for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (i) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization), received an order pursuant to Article 20 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to the case where that order has become final and binding) or a decision pursuant to Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order pursuant to Article 20-2 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization that has become final and binding.

②With regard to the application of Article 20-3 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization, if the enterprise has, within 10 years counting back from the day on which a disposition listed in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in a case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-3 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (or, where such a disposition was not carried out, within 10 years counting back from the day on which the enterprise received advance notification of the violation), received a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (ii) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), or has, for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (ii) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization), received an order pursuant to Article 20 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to the case where that order has become final and binding) or a decision pursuant to Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order pursuant to Article 20-3 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization that has become final and binding.

③With regard to the application of Article 20-4 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization, if the enterprise has, within 10 years counting back from the day on which a disposition listed in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in a case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-4 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (or, where such a disposition was not carried out, within 10 years counting back from the day on which the enterprise received advance notification of the violation), received a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iii) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), or has, for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iii) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization), received an order pursuant to Article 20 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to the case where that order has become final and binding) or a decision pursuant to Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order pursuant to Article 20-4 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization that has become final and binding.

④With regard to the application of Article 20-5 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization, if the enterprise has, within 10 years counting back from the day on which a disposition listed in Article 47, paragraph (1), item (iv) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade was first carried out in a case concerning the violation prescribed in Article 20-5 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization (or, where such a disposition was not carried out, within 10 years counting back from the day on which the enterprise received advance notification of the violation), received a decision pursuant to Article 48, paragraph (4), Article 53-3, or Article 54 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act Before the January 2006 Amendment (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iv) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), or has, for an act in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one equivalent to the act prescribed in Article 2, paragraph (9), item (iv) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization), received an order pursuant to Article 20 of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to the case where that order has become final and binding) or a decision pursuant to Article 66, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (limited to one rescinding the whole of the original disposition) (limited to the case where that decision has become final and binding), that decision or order is deemed to be an order pursuant to Article 20-5 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization that has become final and binding.

With regard to notifications concerning the establishment of a trade association prescribed in Article 8, paragraphs (2) through (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act, a change in the matters notified, and dissolution, which arose before the day on which the provisions prescribed in the proviso to Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions come into effect, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

The provisions of Article 10, paragraphs (2) and (8) of the New Antimonopoly Act apply to the acquisition of shares made on or after the day on which 30 days have elapsed from the Effective Date, and the provisions then in force continue to govern the acquisition or ownership of shares before that day.

①With regard to a notification made pursuant to the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (2) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), Article 15-2, paragraph (2) or (3) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (6) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), or Article 16, paragraph (2) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 16, paragraph (5) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), for which, at the time this Act comes into effect, neither the 30-day period prescribed in the main clause of Article 15, paragraph (5) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (7) or Article 16, paragraph (6) of the Former Antimonopoly Act) nor the period shortened pursuant to the provisions of the proviso to Article 15, paragraph (5) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (7) or Article 16, paragraph (6) of the Former Antimonopoly Act) has elapsed, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

②In the case where a merger, joint incorporation-type split, absorption-type split, or acceptance of assignment of business, etc. (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as "merger, etc.") is to be carried out before 30 days have elapsed from the Effective Date, and at the time this Act comes into effect there was actually no requirement to notify a plan for that merger, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (2) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), Article 15-2, paragraph (2) or (3) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (6) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), or Article 16, paragraph (2) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 16, paragraph (5) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), the provisions then in force continue to govern.

The provisions of Article 15-3, paragraph (2) of the New Antimonopoly Act and Article 10, paragraph (8) of the New Antimonopoly Act as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-3, paragraph (3) of the New Antimonopoly Act do not apply to a joint share transfer carried out before the day on which 30 days have elapsed from the Effective Date.

With regard to an action for invalidation of a merger, joint incorporation-type split, or absorption-type split in the case where, before the Effective Date, a company has carried out a merger, joint incorporation-type split, or absorption-type split in violation of the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (2) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15, paragraph (4) of the Former Antimonopoly Act) and paragraph (5) of that Article, or Article 15-2, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Former Antimonopoly Act (including as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (6) of the Former Antimonopoly Act), and Article 15, paragraph (5) of the Former Antimonopoly Act as applied mutatis mutandis following the deemed replacement of terms pursuant to Article 15-2, paragraph (7) of the Former Antimonopoly Act, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

With regard to a disposition on a request for the inspection or copying of case records made pursuant to the provisions of Article 70-15 of the Former Antimonopoly Act before the day on which the provisions prescribed in the proviso to Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions come into effect, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

The provisions of Articles 80 through 83 of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization apply to actions filed on or after the Effective Date, and the provisions then in force continue to govern actions filed before the Effective Date.

①The provisions of Article 84, paragraph (1) of the New Antimonopoly Act apply to an action for damages under the provisions of Article 25 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade that is filed on or after the date of enforcement of the provisions prescribed in the proviso to Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions, and with regard to an action for damages under the provisions of Article 25 of that Act that was filed before that date, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

②The provisions of Article 84, paragraph (1) of the New Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization, as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to paragraph (2) of that Article, apply to a claim for damages under the provisions of Article 25 of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade that is made in court proceedings for the purpose of a set-off in an action filed on or after the date of enforcement of the provisions prescribed in the proviso to Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions, and with regard to a claim for damages under the provisions of Article 25 of that Act that was made in court proceedings for the purpose of a set-off in an action filed before that date, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

Dispositions, procedures and other acts carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Former Antimonopoly Act or orders based thereon before this Act (or, for the provisions prescribed in the proviso to Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions, those provisions; the same applies in the following Article) comes into effect, for which there are corresponding provisions in the provisions of the New Antimonopoly Act or orders based thereon, are, except as otherwise provided in these Supplementary Provisions, deemed to have been carried out pursuant to the corresponding provisions of the New Antimonopoly Act or orders based thereon.

With regard to the application of penal provisions to acts committed before this Act comes into effect and to acts committed after this Act comes into effect in the cases where the provisions then in force are to continue to govern pursuant to the provisions of Articles 9 through 11 of the Supplementary Provisions, the provisions then in force continue to govern.

In addition to what is provided for in Article 2 through the preceding Article of the Supplementary Provisions, transitional measures necessary for the enforcement of this Act are specified by Cabinet Order.

①The government is to review the provisions concerning trial proceedings in the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade in their entirety, conduct an examination during fiscal year 2009, and take required measures based on the results.

②When five years have elapsed after this Act comes into effect, the government, taking into account the status of enforcement of the New Antimonopoly Act, is to examine the provisions of the New Antimonopoly Act if it finds it necessary, and take required measures based on the results.