umraniye escort pendik escort
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
bodrum escort
Short Reads

The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

The ACM follows EU approach in its first pharmaceutical merger

07.02.2019 NL law

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.

The deal, worth EUR 74 million, involved India's Aurobindo acquiring Canadian Apotex's commercial operations and some of its supporting infrastructure in Poland, Czech Republic, Spain Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Dutch market, Aurobindo predominantly supplies prescription drugs to pharmacies, whereas Apotex's focus is on over-the-counter retail sales through drugstores and supermarkets (a substantial portion of which is private label sales). This diverging focus of the respective businesses was an important factor in the ACM's assessment.

Typically, pharmaceutical transactions are assessed by the European Commission in view of the turnover associated with pharmaceutical product portfolios. However, the Aurobindo/Apotex deal did not meet the European thresholds and therefore had to be reviewed by the Dutch and Polish competition authorities. The ACM followed the EU's industry-specific framework of analysing pharmaceutical mergers. In line with the Commission's approach, the ACM analysed overlaps at the level of the molecule limited to specific forms. The Dutch regulator also analysed the parties' pipeline, contract manufacturing and outlicensing activities. The only drug which raised concerns was the diazepam (enema), because the companies were the only suppliers of this drug in the Netherlands. The parties' commitment to divest Apotex's diazepam (enema) product remedied the ACM's competition concerns.

The ACM focuses on the pharmaceutical industry as part of its key priorities in 2019.


This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of February 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:


Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more