Mergers & Acquisitions
Subscribe to Mergers & Acquisitions's Posts

German Federal Cartel Office Consults on Substantive Merger Control – Draft Guidance Focuses on Market Dominance

by Philipp Werner, Martina Maier and David Henry

On 21 July 2011, the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) published a consultation paper on substantive merger control called “Draft Guidance on Substantive Merger Control” (Draft Guidance).  This is the first time the FCO has consulted on a guidance paper.  Comments on the draft guidance can be submitted until 21 September 2011.

Against the fact that the German merger control regime catches a large number of mergers (around 1000 mergers a year) and that the FCO has a strong enforcement record (15 Phase II- proceedings in 2010), the Draft Guidance provides detailed insight in the approach taken by the FCO in assessing mergers.

German merger control is applicable if the following three cumulative turnover thresholds are met: the aggregate worldwider turnover of all undertakings concerned exceeds € 500m, the turnover in Germany of one undertaking concerned exceeds € 25m and the turnover in Germany of another undertaking concerned exceeds € 5m.  In addition, German merger control catches the acquisition of control as well as the acquisition of a minority shareholding of 25 percent or – in cases of “competitively significant influence” even shareholdings below 25 percent.  The Draft Guidance does not deal with the question under which conditions German merger control is applicable, it only concerns the substantive analysis of mergers which fall under German merger control.

The Draft Guidance reflects the existing approach of the FCO rather than proposing an new way of thinking. While it also encorporates economic considerations, it largely provides a agency friendly interpretation of the FCO’s decision practice and relevant case-law.  Still, it shows a move towards more economic analysis and a deviation from the FCO’s traditional, more market structure oriented approach.  But it seems unlikely that the strict enforcement policy of the FCO will change as a result of the new guidance paper.

The Draft Guidance focuses on the question whether a merger will lead to the creation or strengthening of dominance.  Unlike in other jurisdictions, such as the US and EU, the creation or strengthening of a dominant position is the criterion for the prohibition of a merger in German merger control.  While discussions are under way about the introduction of the  SIEC test (“significant impediment to competition”) in an effort to harmonize German with EU merger control rules, the FCO makes it clear that it anticipates that the Draft Guidance will remain relevant even if the underlying test changes.

In terms of substance, the Draft Guidance distinguishes between horizontal, vertical and conglomerate mergers and between single firm dominance and collective dominance.  The definition of dominance and the substantive assessment relies on standard theories of harm and recognised economic theories that are also used by other competition authorities such as the European Commission.

Some elements of the Draft Guidance reflect a traditional German understanding of merger control which may differ from the approach in other jurisdictions.  Thus, the Draft Guidance suggests that the purpose of merger control is to protect competition as [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Major Changes to HSR Disclosure Requirements Effective August 18, 2011

by Jon B. Dubrow, Carla A. R. Hine and Carrie G. Amezcua

Revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) notification rules and form (as detailed here) will become effective August 18, 2011.  Parties planning to file an HSR premerger notification on or after August 18 must comply with the new disclosure requirements and use the newly revised HSR form.




read more

FTC Announces Major Changes to Disclosure Requirements for Hart-Scott-Rodino Notification Rules and Form

by Jon B. Dubrow, Joseph F. Winterscheid and Carla A. R. Hine

Companies should begin regularly collecting required data—in particular revenues by North American Industry Classification System code and information about “associates”—in advance of need to file Hart-Scott-Rodino notification.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

How to Watch Your EU Deals from an Antitrust Perspective

by Veronica Pinotti, Riccardo Franceschi and Martino Sforza

Compliance with EU and national antitrust merger control rules can significantly impact the feasibility, timing and costs of M&A transactions.  Parties to a proposed transaction in the EU should assess the merger control issues early in the process and evaluate and comply with any procedural antitrust requirements to avoid unnecessary delay, or even civil or criminal penalties, in any EU transactions.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

German Antitrust Regulator Steps Up the Fight Against Gun-Jumping

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

More than 100 countries worldwide have merger control regimes.  In the majority of these regimes, including the U.S., EU and most EU Member States, parties to a transaction may not close a deal without approval from the competition antitrust regulator.  An infringement of this obligation, or "gun-jumping", carries risks that are generally well understood.  But companies should be aware that the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has recently taken a more aggressive approach in its enforcement of gun-jumping, in particular concerning the fining policy for gun-jumping.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

DOJ Releases New Merger Remedy Guide

by Joel R. Grosberg and Megan Morley

The DOJ has released an updated merger remedies guide that provides an overview on how the DOJ Antitrust Division staff will analyze proposed remedies in merger matters.  The revised guide places an increased emphasis on behavioral or conduct remedies to address issues raised by vertical transactions.

To view the full article, click here.




read more

China’s MOFCOM Gets Tough on Merger Control?

by Henry L.T. Chen and Frank Schoneveld

There is considerable speculation in China that many large transactions that should have been notified for clearance by China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) have not been properly notified, and Chinese government is going to go after the concerned concentrating parties.  Recently, the speculation came into being and all public comments must be filed before 23 June 2011.  New Draft Regulations, “Preliminary Regulations on the Investigation & Treatment of Failure to Report Concentration of Undertakings (Opinion Solicitation Draft),” clarify and provide MOFCOM with the power to investigate, fine and order divestiture of mergers and acquisitions that should have been, but have failed to be, notified and cleared by MOFCOM.

To read the full article, please visit: https://www.mwechinalaw.com/news/2011/chinalawalert0611b.htm.




read more

China Seeks Comments on New Evaluating Competitive Influence Rules

by Henry L.T. Chen and Frank Schoneveld

To evaluate the competitive impact of an anti-monopoly review on the market of mergers and acquisitions (or concentration) and to guide business operators when filing notification of a concentration, the Ministry of Commerce of China has introduced Interim Measures on Evaluating Competitive Influence Caused by the Concentration of Business Operators (Draft for Comments) for public comment.  The deadline for submission of comments is June 13, 2011.

To view the full article, click here.




read more

FTC Publishes Comments to FERC Notice of Inquiry Regarding 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines

by Jon B. Dubrow and Carrie G. Amezcua

On Tuesday the FTC published its comments to FERC’s Notice of Inquiry (NOI), in which  FERC had asked for comments on whether, (and if so, how), it should revise its approach for examining market power concerns arising from horizontal mergers to reflect the revised 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines published by the FTC and DOJ.  The NOI also asked for comments on what impact the revised Merger Guidelines should have on FERC’s analysis of horizontal market power in its electric market-based rate program.

The theme of the FTC’s comments focus on encouraging FERC to adopt the broader set of concepts from the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, not just the revised HHI thresholds, as FERC’s NOI suggests.  HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) is a measure of market concentration, based on market share analysis.  The FTC points out that a "critical thrust" of the 2010 Merger Guidelines is that "merger analysis should examine all dimensions of a transaction’s likely competitive effects," not just market concentration.  The FTC cautions that focusing only on HHI calculations can be misleading – either too lenient or too restrictive– especially given characteristics of electricity markets, notably, relatively inelastic demand, capacity-constrained firms, transmission congestion and long-term supply contracts.  While market shares are one indicator of competitive effects, other types of evidence include actual effects, direct comparison based on experience, substantial head-to-head competition and the potentially disruptive role of a merging party.  The FTC’s comments also note that strict market definition is not the only appropriate starting point for merger analysis, and may not even be required in some circumstances when there is evidence of anticompetitive effects.

If FERC adopts the principles in the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, FERC’s competition analysis would become similar to the comprehensive competitive effects analysis in FTC and DOJ investigations.




read more

German Regulator Steps Up Enforcement of Merger Standstill Obligation

by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

The majority of merger control regimes around the world impose standstill or waiting period requirements for notifiable transactions, e.g. the US, the EU and most EU Member States. If a transaction meets the filing thresholds, it must be notified to the competent antitrust regulator and must not be closed without prior approval by the antitrust regulator or the expiration of the applicable waiting period.

Under German merger control rules, a notifiable merger must not be implemented without prior clearance decision. An infringement of the standstill obligation can (theoretically) lead to fines of up to 10 percent of the group’s worldwide turnover. In addition, the infringement of the standstill obligation renders the contracts ineffective under German merger control rules.

The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has recently taken a stricter approach to the enforcement of the merger standstill obligation. In the past, the risk of fines was minor if the merger did not lead to any serious competition concerns, if it was the group’s first infringement of the standstill obligation and if the company itself notified the FCO ex post of the implemented merger.

We see now a growing number of decisions imposing fines for the infringement of the standstill obligation (sometimes referred to as "gun jumping" in the United States). In May 2011, in the latest of a string of such decisions, the FCO imposed a substantial fine for infringement of the standstill obligation although the merger did not lead to any serious competition concerns and although the company had itself notified the implemented merger. These facts were only taken into account as mitigating factors for the calculation of the fine.

The European Commission has also recently imposed fines for the infringement of the standstill obligation.

In this changing environment, the filing requirement and the standstill obligation cannot be seen as a pure formality. It is therefore essential to always verify whether and in which jurisdictions a transaction is notifiable – and not to close the deal before the relevant competition authorities have cleared the deal.




read more

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022