EC Developments Archives - Page 9 of 33

EC Developments

Antitrust M&A Snapshot: July – September 2016 Update

by Emily Townsend | Oct 31, 2016 | DOJ Developments, EC Developments, FTC Developments

UNITED STATES:

Continuing an active first half of 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) have challenged several large mergers and acquisitions. In fact, trials for the two national health insurer deals are slated to begin Q4 of 2016 in Washington, DC, where the agencies have had success in obtaining preliminary injunctions this year. Adding to the regulators’ successes in Q3 was a victory for the FTC on appeal in the Penn State Hershey Medical Center/PinnacleHealth System transaction, in which the Third Circuit overturned the district court’s formulation of the geographic market. Indeed, with another appeal in a hospital merger outstanding in the Seventh Circuit, Health Care M&A is an active sector to monitor.

In addition to the agencies’ operations, the upcoming US presidential election has also propelled antitrust policy into a national discussion. For the first time in a few decades, antitrust has appeared on the Democratic Party’s platform, and Hillary Clinton has also issued a statement promising to strengthen antitrust enforcement if elected president.

EUROPEAN UNION:

The July to September period has seen 87 merger control notifications, the vast majority being candidate cases for simplified procedure. There were also eight clearance decisions, five of which were Phase I cases with remedies—in each case, structural remedies were preferred by the European Commission (EC).

Antitrust intervention seems to have been focused more on the telecoms and pharmaceutical sectors, with divestitures being offered in every telecom and pharma Phase I and Phase II clearance decision since July.

Read the full article here.

Ad hoc Local Leniency Application Makes the Difference: The Italian Council of State Upholds the Administrative Court of Lazio Judgment on the Alleged International Road Freight Cartel

by Emily Townsend | Oct 26, 2016 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, Italian Developments

On 20 October 2016, the Italian Council of State (the “Council of State”) upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court of Lazio (“TAR”) on the cartel in the sector of international road freight forwarding to and from Italy and confirmed the ranking applied in granting the reduction of the fine. According to the Council of State, in order to access the national leniency program, a company should provide the Authority with all necessary information and elements for the uncovering of the infringement, and should take into account that all the relevant information and elements provided to other authorities, in the context of other leniency application, will not be considered by the Authority. Therefore, companies should be careful and verify that each leniency application submitted is prepared ad hoc for each jurisdiction and is not capable of raising doubts regarding its scope. (more…)

EU Court Confirms European Commission’s Decision on Pay-for-Delay Agreements

by Mélanie Bruneau and McDermott Will & Emery | Oct 20, 2016 | EC Developments, IP Antitrust

On 8 September 2016, the General Court of the European Union upheld the European Commission’s decision in which the antitrust regulator imposed fines of approximately EUR 150 million on Lundbeck and a number of generic companies for entering into reverse settlement agreements which delayed the entry of cheaper generic versions of a blockbuster antidepressant.

The Commission had first hinted that patent settlement agreements causing delayed generic entry might be problematic in its 2009 report on the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry. (more…)

European Commission Challenges Public Price Announcements by Shipping Liner Companies

by Mélanie Bruneau | Oct 20, 2016 | EC Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration

On 7 July 2016, the European Commission adopted a decision accepting commitments by 14 shipping liner companies to change their practices concerning announcements of intended price increases for containerised shipping services. The Commission considered that these announcements were anti-competitive and resulted in higher prices for container liner shipping services, thereby harming customers. (more…)

General Court Confirms that the Commission May Rely on Lawfully Seized Recordings Even if Made Unlawfully by a Third Party

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 28, 2016 | Cartel Enforcement, Consumer Protection/Privacy, EC Developments

On 8 September 2016 the General Court (“GC”) dismissed Heiploeg’s appeal against the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision in Shrimps (AT.39633) and confirmed that the Commission may rely on recordings seized lawfully in a “dawn raid” even if the recordings were made illegally by a third party (T-54/14). This judgment reminds us of the delicate balance between the right to respect for private life and the Commission’s need to obtain high probative evidence when investigating cartels.

(more…)

E-Commerce: The European Commission Completes Its Preliminary Report on the E-Commerce Sector Inquiry

by Antoine De Rohan Chabot and Mélanie Bruneau | Sep 20, 2016 | EC Developments

In May 2015, the European Commission (the Commission) launched a sector inquiry in the field of e-commerce in the context of its Digital Single Market strategy. Its aim was to obtain an overview of prevailing market trends, gather evidence on potential barriers to competition linked to the growth of e-commerce and understand the prevalence of certain, potentially restrictive, business practices and the underlying rationale for their use.

In the course of this inquiry, the Commission gathered evidence from nearly 1,800 companies active in the e-commerce of consumer goods and digital content and analyzed around 8,000 distribution contracts. On 18 March 2016, the Commission published its initial findings showing that geo-blocking is widespread in the European Union due to unilateral decisions by companies not to sell abroad as well as contractual barriers set up by companies preventing consumers from shopping online across EU borders.

On 15 September 2016, the Commission completed its preliminary report (the Preliminary Report), which confirms the fast growth of e-commerce in the European Union and identified business practices that might restrict competition and limit consumer choice. (more…)

Listed Companies: Dealing with Reporting Obligations in the Context of Antitrust Proceedings

by Louise Aberg and McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 14, 2016 | EC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

Financial regulatory authorities such as the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the French Autorité des marchés financiers frequently impose on companies that are listed on a stock exchange the obligation to disclose key information to investors to help them make informed investment decisions.

The difficulties for companies lie principally in the nature of the information to be disclosed, the timing of the disclosure, and the balance of the obligation towards financial regulatory authorities on one hand, and competition authorities on the other.

Read the full article here.

US and EU Requirements for Pre-Merger Notification of an Acquisition of a Minority Shareholding Interest

by Bilal Sayyed and McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 31, 2016 | DOJ Developments, EC Developments, EU Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration, Mergers & Acquisitions

In May, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC to divest its 23 percent interest in Unimark Remedies, Ltd. and its US marketing rights to a generic drug under manufacture by Unimark as a condition to allowing Hikma to complete its acquisition of Roxane Laboratories. The FTC was concerned that Hikma’s continued holding of a 23 percent interest in Unimark after consummation of its proposed acquisition of Roxane would create the incentive and ability for Hikma to eliminate future competition between Roxane and Hikma/Unimark in the sale of generic flecainide tablets (a drug used to treat abnormally fast heart rhythms) in the United States.

The FTC’s divestiture requirement was unusual but not unprecedented. The Horizontal Merger Guidelines identify three theories of competitive harm associated with an acquisition or holding of a small but significant minority interest in a competitor.

Minority ownership, and any associated rights, such as veto rights over the competing firm’s budget or strategic decisions, or representation on its board of directors, may allow the shareholder to forestall, delay or otherwise hamper the competing firm’s further development or marketing of competitive products
The holder of a minority interest in a competing firm has diminished incentives to compete aggressively with the competitor firm because the holder obtains an economic benefit from the success of the competing firm through its partial ownership of that competitor.
The holder of a minority interest in a competing firm may have access to non-public, competitively sensitive information of the competing firm, and thus may be better able to coordinate its business decisions—such as pricing, output, or research and development efforts—with those of the competing firm, thus diminishing competition.

These theories of potential antitrust harm from minority interest acquisitions are not unique to the United States; other competition agencies, including the European Union’s competition directorate, accept and apply these theories when considering the competitive impact of a firm’s actual or proposed partial ownership interest in a competitor. However, the United States applies a significantly lower threshold than the European Union (and other competition agencies) for the pre-acquisition notification of an entity’s acquisition of a minority, non-controlling interest in another firm.

Read the full article here.

The Concept of Full-Function Joint Venture in the EU

by Jacques Buhart and Louise Aberg | Aug 26, 2016 | EC Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration

In the European Union (EU), at the inception of a joint venture (JV), parent companies must determine whether the newly created structure presents a full-functionality nature, which depends on its degree of autonomy. The answer to this question will determine the legal framework applicable to it.

On the one hand, if the JV is full-function it will fall within the scope of the EU Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004), assuming that the turnover thresholds set out in the Regulation are met. Under these circumstances, the European Commission (EC) will assess the impact of the JV on competition on an ex ante basis.

On the other hand, if the JV is not full-function and takes the form of a partnership formalized by a legal structure to a large extent dependent on its parent companies, the creation of a JV will not have to be notified but the EC may operate a control ex post, in the light of Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU which prohibits anticompetitive agreements between undertakings. In such a context, it is up to the parent companies creating a JV to determine whether their JV is compatible with competition law rules.

The ex post control has the advantage of avoiding the notification process that delays the implementation of the JV. However, within that framework, companies may not obtain a clearance decision and the fate of their JV is subject to legal uncertainty. It is thus generally preferable for companies to make sure that their JV will fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation because a clearance decision is irrevocable and unlimited.

Read the full article to learn more.

The European Commission Fines Truck Manufacturers a Record €2.93 billion for Cartel Conduct

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 15, 2016 | Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments

On 19 July 2016, the European Commission (Commission) imposed fines totaling €2,926,499,000 on four truck producers (39824 – Trucks). The fine is the highest ever imposed on members of a cartel by the EU competition regulator. The case is also noteworthy because it is the first Commission prohibition decision following “Brexit” and could thus become a test case to see whether the UK remains a jurisdiction of choice for follow-on damages actions.
(more…)

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS