Short Reads

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obliga

European Court of Justice rules EY did not violate stand-still obligation in Danish merger

01.06.2018 NL law

On 31 May 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that Ernst & Young (EY) did not illegally implement the acquisition of KPMG Denmark (KPMG DK) before obtaining antitrust clearance.  Following the announcement of the transaction, KPMG DK terminated a cooperation agreement. According to the Court, that act cannot be regarded as a violation of the stand-still obligation since it did not contribute to the change of control of the target undertaking.

This case falls within a broader trend of procedural merger control enforcement by the European Commission and national competition authorities. Indeed, competition authorities have been cracking down on merger control infringements, levying hefty fines for the submission of inaccurate information and for 'gun-jumping' [see our May 2018 Newsletter]. Gun-jumping, a broadly used term, refers to three different types of conduct: violations of the duty to notify, illicit information sharing in the context of a contemplated concentration and the violation of the standstill obligation. However, the criteria to assess what constitutes the various forms of gun-jumping are not entirely clear and vary per jurisdiction. 

In this case, at the time of the announcement of the transaction, but before receiving antitrust clearance, KPMG DK gave notice to terminate its membership agreement with KPMG International. The Danish competition authority (DCCA) found that the transaction was implemented prematurely as a result of the termination of KPMG DK's membership. According to the DCCA the notice violated the stand-still obligation as it was merger-specific, irreversible and likely to have market effects. EY appealed the case before the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court, which in turn referred the case to the Court of Justice, requesting a clarification of the scope of the standstill obligation in article 7 (1) of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR).

Advocate General Wahl noted in his Opinion that none of DCCA's criteria were relevant for determining the scope of the standstill obligation. According to Wahl the concept of  'concentration' is crucial to understanding the standstill obligation, thereby highlighting the importance to show a change of control. Wahl opined that the standstill obligation does not affect measures that precede and are severable from the measures actually leading to controlling the target undertaking. 
In its ruling the Court of Justice concurred with Wahl that to define the scope of the standstill obligation, account must be taken of the definition of concentration.  According to the Court, article 7(1) EUMR must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is implemented only by a transaction which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in control of the target undertaking.

Specifically the Court indicated that where transactions, despite having been carried out in the context of a concentration, "are not necessary to achieve a change of control" of an undertaking, they do not fall within the scope of Article 7 EUMR. Those transactions, "although they may be ancillary or preparatory to the concentration, do not present a direct functional link with its implementation, so that their implementation is not, in principle, likely to undermine the efficiency of the control of concentrations".

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

European Commission must reassess Lufthansa's request to waive merger commitments
Dutch Appeal Court drastically reduces cartel fine Dutch construction company
District Court of Amsterdam declines jurisdiction in competition law damages case
Belgian Supreme Court confirms illegality of dawn raids due to the lack of a warrant 

Team

Related news

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring