Short Reads

Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules

Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on compliance with procedural EU merger rules

01.08.2017 EU law

On 6 July 2017, the European Commission sent three separate Statements of Objections (SO) to Merck and Sigma-Aldrich, General Electric (GE) and Canon for alleged breaches of procedural EU merger rules. The Commission claims Merck /Sigma-Aldrich and GE provided incorrect or misleading information, while Canon allegedly implemented a merger before it was notified and cleared.

Two months ago, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 110 million on Facebook for providing misleading information during its WhatsApp takeover and issued an SO to Altice for ‘gun jumping’ [see our June 2017 Newsletter]. These developments signal the Commission’s 'no tolerance approach' towards companies that violate (procedural) merger rules. 

Merck / Sigma-Aldrich

On 6 July 2017, the Commission sent an SO to Merck and Sigma-Aldrich alleging that the companies had provided incorrect or misleading information during Merck's acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich. The Commission had concerns that the merger would reduce competition for certain laboratory chemicals, but cleared it on June 2015 subject to the divestment of certain Sigma-Aldrich assets. However, the companies omitted important information in the merger filing about an innovation (pipeline) project, which would have otherwise been included in the remedy package. The failure to provide this information impaired the viability and competitiveness of the divested business. In the meantime, Merck agreed to license the relevant technology to Honeywell, the buyer of the divested business, almost one year after the Commission decision. 

General Electric / LM Wind

On 11 January 2017, GE notified the Commission of its planned acquisition of LM Wind, a Danish manufacturer of wind-turbine blades. On 2 February, GE withdrew its notification, only to re-notify the same transaction eleven days later. This second notification included new information on a future project, originally omitted from the first notification.

On 6 July 2017, the Commission sent an SO to GE, alleging that the company failed to provide information in the original notification concerning GE’s R&D activities and the development of a specific product. According to the Commission, this omission also influenced its assessment of another transaction in the wind turbine market, the acquisition by Siemens of Gamesa.

Canon / Toshiba Medical Systems

In the SO sent to Canon, the Commission alleged a different violation of the procedural merger rules. Its preliminary conclusion is that Canon 'jumped the gun' by implementing its acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems before it was notified, and subsequently approved by the Commission. According to the Commission, Canon used a two-step process known as 'warehousing'. An interim buyer first acquired 95% of Toshiba's share capital for EUR 800, after which Canon paid EUR 5.28 billion for the remaining 5%, including share options which granted Canon the right to purchase the interim buyer's stake. After the Commission approved the merger, Canon exercised its share options, thereby acquiring 100% of the shares in Toshiba Medical Systems.

Although the Commission's SOs will not affect the approval of any of the mergers, they could lead to fines of up to 1% of Merck and GE’s annual worldwide turnover, and up to 10% for Canon. Once again, Commissioner Vestager stressed the importance of complying with procedural merger control rules, in particular with the requirement to provide complete and correct information. Companies are required to provide all the information necessary for the Commission to conduct its merger control assessment, including information on the transaction’s potential impact of innovation (i.e. accurate information about future projects or products), which is an increasingly important part of the economy [see our July 2017 Newsletter].

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. Court of Justice dismisses Toshiba's appeal against the gas-insulated switchgear fine
2. Trade and Industry Appeals annuls fine imposed on real estate traders
3. District Court of Rotterdam upheld ACM's decision to clear lottery merger
4. ACM closes probe into Fox over live-soccer TV rights due to lack of evidence of consumer harm
5. District Court of The Hague rules on ACM's powers to select and inspect digital data


Related news

16.03.2018 BE law
(Micro)plastics: EU-restrictie op komst?

Articles - Lees hier meer over de groeiende aandacht voor microplastics, die meer en meer in producten en levensmiddelen opduiken. De Europese instellingen hebben de microplastics in het vizier vanwege hun mogelijke impact op het marien milieu en de menselijke gezondheid. Ze denken na over beperkingen op microplastics. Volgen ook in België  bindende maatregelen?

Read more

01.03.2018 EU law
ACM publishes key priorities for 2018 and 2019

Short Reads - On 13 February 2018, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) highlighted the key priorities it will pursue in 2018 and 2019. It will focus on the digital economy, making the energy market greener, prices of prescription drugs and competition in the port sector. Interested parties were invited to share their comments on the priorities and multiple statements online.

Read more

14.03.2018 EU law
The Court of Justice of the European Union Rules that Intra-EU Investment Arbitration is Incompatible with EU Law: Reflections and Consequences for the Energy Charter Treaty

Articles - On the 6th of March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in a case between the Slovak Republic and Achmea (Case C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158) that investment arbitration on the basis of the Netherlands-Slovakia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is incompatible with EU law, in particular Arts. 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Read more

27.02.2018 BE law
Kleinhandelsbeleid getoetst aan Dienstenrichtlijn

Articles - Het Hof van Justitie heeft in een recent arrest de Dienstenrichtlijn van toepassing verklaard op "detailhandel". Dit arrest heeft belangrijke gevolgen voor het lokale kleinhandelsbeleid. Zo zal een gemeente of een provincie die de toegang tot of de uitoefening van een dienstenactiviteit beperkt, afdoende moeten motiveren waarom die belemmering verstaanbaar is met de Dienstenrichtlijn. Het bestuur moet dan ook waakzamer dan ooit zijn wil het een wettig kleinhandelsbeleid voeren. 

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring