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

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

The need for speed in mergers is no reason to ignore rights of defence

07.02.2019 NL law

On 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice clarified the procedural guarantees the European Commission needs to provide to merging parties during merger reviews. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court (GC) had rightly annulled the Commission's decision to prohibit the merger of UPS and TNT. UPS's right of defence had been infringed because the Commission had failed to share the final version of the econometric model with UPS before adopting its prohibition decision.

Even though there is a need for speed in merger control proceedings, companies should still be given sufficient opportunity to provide their views on the accuracy and relevance of all the factors on which the Commission intends to base its decision.

In 2013, the Commission concluded that the merger would have led to a significant impediment to effective competition in 15 Member States on the market for the international express delivery of small parcels. UPS subsequently withdrew its cash offer for TNT and, in 2016, TNT was acquired by FedEx, a competitor of UPS.

In 2017, the GC set aside the Commission's prohibition decision on the ground that the rights of defence of UPS had been infringed [see our April 2017 Newsletter]. Specifically, the econometric model relied on by the Commission differed materially from the one disclosed to the parties in the statement of objections. The GC held that this error was sufficient to annul the prohibition decision because, absent the error, there was at least a slight chance that the parties would have been better able to defend themselves. Notably, the GC did not find it necessary to consider whether the outcome of the Commission's review would have been different but for the procedural error.

The Court of Justice upheld the GC's judgment and confirmed that the rights of the defence require parties to be put in a position in which they can effectively make known their views on the accuracy and relevance of all the factors on which the Commission intends to base its decision. The Court of Justice emphasized that while econometric models are quantitative tools appropriate for the purpose of carrying out prospective merger control analysis, the methodological basis underpinning those models must be as objective as possible.

The judgment, which is consistent with EU courts' greater appetite to set aside Commission decisions on procedural (as opposed to substantive) grounds, is likely to only have a modest effect on the Commission's conduct in merger reviews. This is because in trying to strike a balance between administrative expediency and the rights of defence, the judgment only requires that "material" changes be notified to the merging parties. According to AG Kokott's opinion, undertakings concerned should not expect, in terms of content, more than a brief and to-the-point description of the econometric model used by the Commission.

Finally, it remains to be seen how the judgment will affect the ongoing damages claims brought against the Commission by UPS and Irish aviation company ASL, which had agreed to buy TNT Airways subject to the UPS/TNT transaction. Both parties are seeking compensation for losses incurred in connection with the prohibition decision.

 

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

Team

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