umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

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

Recent enforcement action demonstrates an increasing focus on complian

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

01.08.2017 NL 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

Team

Related news

04.03.2021 NL law
Net(work) closing in on cross-border cartels?

Short Reads - A heads-up for companies with cross-border activities. The ECN+ Directive’s transposition deadline has expired and its provisions should by now have found their way into the national laws of the EU Member States. In the Netherlands, amendments to the Dutch Competition Act giving effect to the ECN+ Directive came into force recently, together with a new governmental decree on leniency.

Read more

04.03.2021 NL law
Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepts jurisdiction in competition law damages case concerning Greek beer market

Short Reads - On 16 February 2021, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) set aside a judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (the District Court) in which the District Court declined jurisdiction over the alleged claims against Athenian Brewery (AB), a Greek subsidiary of Heineken N.V. (Heineken), in a civil case brought by competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
ECJ clarifies limits of antitrust limitation periods

Short Reads - Companies confronted with antitrust investigations and fines may find safeguard behind the rules governing limitation periods (often termed ‘statutes of limitation’). However, two preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that those rules are not necessarily set in stone. According to the ECJ, national time limits relating to the imposition of antitrust fines may require deactivation if these limits result in a ‘systemic risk’ that antitrust infringements may go unpunished.

Read more

12.02.2021 EU law
After the Uber case and the Airbnb case … the Star Taxi App case: focus on the question of the qualification as “Information Society Service”

Articles - Societal and digital developments are reflected in the case law of the CJEU. For several years now, European judges resolve disputes relating to digital applications and the services they provide. On 3 December 2020, they handed down a judgment in a case concerning Star Taxi App. This blog analyses the Star Taxi App case law in the light of the Uber case law and the Airbnb case law. The three judgments have in common the question of the qualification of services as Information Society Services.  

Read more

04.02.2021 NL law
Game over? Gaming companies fined for geo-blocking

Short Reads - The Commission’s cross-border sales crusade seems far from over. The EUR 7.8 million fine imposed on distribution platform owner Valve and five PC video games publishers for geo-blocking practices is the most recent notch in the Commission’s belt. Food producer Mondelĕz may be next on the Commission’s hit list: a formal investigation into possible cross-border trade restrictions was opened recently.

Read more