Articles

CBb ruled that the ACM wrongfully blocked merger between baking companies

CBb ruled that the ACM wrongfully blocked merger between baking companies

CBb ruled that the ACM wrongfully blocked merger between baking companies

01.03.2016 NL law

On 11 February 2016, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ("CBb") annulled the decision of the Authority for Consumers & Markets ("ACM") to block the proposed acquisition of A.A. ter Beek B.V. by Continental Bakeries B.V. (the "Parties"). 

The Parties both produced and sold rusk (beschuit) and gingerbread (ontbijtkoek) [see our April 2014 newsletter]. The CBb concluded that the ACM failed to substantiate its relevant market definition. As a result, the ACM's competitive analysis of the acquisition's effects lacked grounds.

On 14 December 2012, the ACM decided not to grant approval for the proposed acquisition [see our February 2013 newsletter]. The acquisition would lead to competitive concerns on the upstream market for rusk products, which could not be alleviated by the remedy the Parties offered. The ACM established the existence of competitive concerns after it found that the upstream market for rusk products comprised both branded and private label rusk products. As a result of its investigation, the ACM found that (i) there is a single downstream market for branded and private label rusk products and (ii) the substitutability of these products downstream significantly affected upstream negotiations between producers and retailers. On appeal, the Rotterdam District Court found that the ACM duly investigated the relevant market and fully upheld the ACM's decision.

On final appeal, the CBb ruled, first, that product variations - such as branded and private label rusk products - do not necessarily belong to the same market, even if these products are substitutable on a downstream level. Second, it found that branded and private label rusk products are subject to different procurement procedures. Private label products are procured through tenders, whereas branded label products are purchased through direct negotiations. This indicates the existence of two separate markets. Third, the CBb established that the ACM did not appropriately investigate whether branded label producers are able to discipline private label producers and vice versa. The ability to do so would generally imply that these producers compete on the same market. Finally, the CBb held that the ACM did not investigate other circumstances which could have supported a single product market for branded and private label rusk products.

Overall, the CBb concluded that the ACM failed to provide sufficient reasons for blocking the proposed acquisition, because it erred in defining the market. The CBb did not assess the other grounds of appeal brought forward by the Parties, as the erroneous market delineation already sufficed to overturn both the judgment of the Rotterdam District Court and the ACM decision.

The parties did not try to re-file the concentration because A.A. ter Beek B.V has meanwhile been acquired by a third party. However, the CBb's ruling might form a basis for Continental Bakeries B.V. to claim damages.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. General Court largely confirmed Commission's freight forwarding cartel decision
2. European Commission qualified Dutch and Belgian tax regimes for seaports as state aid

Team

Related news

18.02.2019 NL law
Brexit and data protection: preparing for a 'no-deal'

Short Reads - As it stands, the UK will exit the European Union at midnight on 29 March 2019. Therefore, businesses within the UK, or with trade relations with the UK, would be best advised to assume that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. The exchange of personal data  within the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a no-deal Brexit, the GDPR will cease to be applicable in the UK upon its EU exit.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

Short Reads - On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

Short Reads - The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reviewed its first merger between two pharmaceutical companies. In its conditional clearance of Aurobindo's acquisition of certain European Apotex assets, the ACM followed the European Commission's approach in assessing the merger's impact on competition. Companies will welcome the news that pharma mergers will be reviewed in a similar fashion, irrespective of whether the ACM or the European Commission conducts the review.

Read more

07.02.2019 EU law
Digitisation and competition law: past, present and future

Short Reads - It is nearly time for the European Commission to reveal its course of action in digitisation and competition law. Feedback from a public consultation and the recent conference on 'Shaping competition policy in the era of digitisation' together with the upcoming expert panel's report on the future challenges of digitisation for competition policy are likely to shape the Commission's course of action.

Read more

07.02.2019 NL law
Follow-on cartel damages claim dismissed: don't bury courts under paper work

Short Reads - A recent ruling by the Dutch Court of Appeal confirmed that claimants will need to sufficiently substantiate their claim that they suffered loss due to a cartel, even in follow-on cases. Despite a presumption that sales or service contracts concluded during the cartel period have been affected by the cartel, claimants will still need to provide the courts with concrete, detailed and uncluttered information showing (i) which party purchased (ii) which products from (iii) which manufacturer for (iv) which amount, preferably with copies of the relevant agreements.

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