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

13.09.2018 NL law
FlixBus-uitspraak over de strijd van nieuwe spelers op de openbaar vervoermarkt tegen het bestaande concessiemodel met exclusieve rechten.

Short Reads - Het verrichten van openbaar vervoer geschiedt op basis van een concessie. Een concessie is het recht om met uitsluiting van anderen openbaar vervoer te verrichten in een bepaald gebied gedurende een bepaald tijdvak, aldus artikel 1 van de Wet personenvervoer 2000 (hierna: de 'Wp 2000'). 

Read more

01.08.2018 BE law
Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Short Reads - On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

Read more

01.08.2018 NL law
Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Short Reads - On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

Read more

01.08.2018 NL law
European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case

Short Reads - On 25 July 2018, the European Court of Justice rejected Orange Polska's appeal relating to a European Commission decision finding an abuse of dominance on the Polish wholesale broadband market. The judgment clarifies that the Commission does not have to take into account the actual or likely effects of an infringement when determining the amount of the fine.

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