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

08.06.2021 NL law
De Europese Klimaatwet uitgelicht

Short Reads - Op 21 april 2021 is een voorlopig akkoord bereikt over de Europese Klimaatwet. Deze Klimaatwet kan worden gezien als de kern van de Europese Green Deal, die in december 2019 werd gepubliceerd door de Europese Commissie. Het overstijgende doel van deze instrumenten is om een klimaatneutraal Europa te bewerkstelligen in 2050. De Europese Klimaatwet zorgt ervoor dat deze klimaatneutraliteitsdoelstelling in een Europese verordening wordt vastgelegd. Dit blogbericht gaat nader in op de Europese Klimaatwet en legt uit wat dit met zich brengt.

Read more

08.06.2021 NL law
Actualiteiten milieustraftrecht: zorgelijke ontwikkelingen

Short Reads - Vrijdag 28 mei jl. hadden wij een inspirerend webinar over actualiteiten op het gebied van milieustrafrecht. Wij spraken gedurende 90 minuten onder meer over aansprakelijkheden van bestuurders, de zorgplichten, incidentenrapportages vanuit strafrechtelijk- en bestuursrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
Highest Dutch Court: ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

Short Reads - A high market share is not always proof of a dominant position. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) upheld the annulment of the ACM’s fine of nearly EUR 41 million on Dutch railway operator NS for alleged abuse of dominance. According to the CBb, NS did not abuse its dominant position as the ACM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NS holds a dominant position on the market for the exercise of the right to exploit the main rail network concession.

Read more