Short Reads

No parking! Canon fined EUR 28 million for warehousing transaction structure

No parking! Canon fined EUR 28 million for warehousing transaction st

No parking! Canon fined EUR 28 million for warehousing transaction structure

04.07.2019 NL law

The European Commission has landed a third strike against gun-jumping, the prohibition to implement a transaction before notification to and clearance by the Commission.

After the record fine issued to Altice for being able to use its veto rights to prematurely interfere with the target company's ordinary business decisions (see our May 2018 newsletter) and the European Court of Justice ruling in the Ernst & Young case, allowing certain preparatory measures which are not necessary to achieve a change of control (see our June 2018 newsletter), the most recent decision makes clear that Canon's temporary 'parking' of the target company with an interim buyer is not permitted under the gun-jumping rules. Companies should therefore be careful when considering these types of 'parking systems' as the Commission is clearly targeting gun-jumping violations in all forms.

The Commission's gun-jumping rules require companies (i) to notify an intended concentration to the Commission if the EU Merger Regulation's thresholds are met and (ii) to await the Commission's clearance of the concentration before implementing it.

Canon had notified the Commission of its plan to acquire Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation ("TMSC") from Toshiba on 12 August 2016. The Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally on 19 September 2019. Canon had used a 'warehousing' two-step structure involving an interim buyer to acquire TMSC. As a first step, the interim buyer acquired 95% of TMSC for EUR 800 and Canon acquired the remainder 5% for EUR 5.28 billion and share options over the interim buyer's stake. This first step was carried out prior to the notification to the Commission. Following clearance by the Commission, Canon proceeded with the second step of the transaction, exercised its share option and acquired 100% of the shares in TMSC.  

In July 2017, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Canon, expressing concerns that, through the use of this 'warehousing' structure, Canon had implemented the transaction prior to notification to and clearance from the Commission. In November 2018, the Commission sent a Supplementary Statement of Objections to complement its initial concerns on the basis of recent developments in case law.

Although the details of the Commission's reasoning will only be fully revealed after the publication of its decision, the recent press release confirms that the Commission indeed considers Canon to have violated gun-jumping rules. According to the Commission, the first and second steps of the 'warehousing' transaction structure, taken together, formed a single merger. As a result, by carrying out the first step, which was necessary for Canon to ultimately acquire control of TMSC, Canon partially implemented its acquisition of TMSC before either notifying to or obtaining approval from the Commission.

In the Ernst & Young case, the European Court of Justice clarified that preparatory measures carried out in the context of a concentration but not necessary to achieve a change of control will not be regarded as a partial implementation of a concentration. The Commission's Jurisdictional Notice explains that a temporary 'parking system', according to which a target undertaking is 'parked' with an interim buyer acquiring shares 'on behalf' of the ultimate acquirer (who often bears the major part of the economic risks and may have specific rights) can be regarded as a partial implementation. The interpretation of "partial implementation" therefore seems the decisive factor in determining whether preparatory measures can lead to gun-jumping. Something Canon intends to explore in more detail in its announced appeal of the Commission's decision to the General Court.

Maybe when the full Canon decision is publicly available, it will become clear whether it is possible to conclude 'warehousing' structures which can be considered purely preparatory. For now, companies should be careful when considering measures that may result in the partial implementation of a concentration. As discussed in our May 2019 newsletter, the Commission has its eyes on procedural breaches of its merger control rules. The Canon decision confirms this trend, and clarifies that in order to remain compliant, most two-step 'warehousing' structures will need to be notified to the Commission immediately at the first step, and not afterwards.

 

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

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring