Short Reads

Double-check your merger info - or face significant fines for inaccuracies

Double-check your merger info - or face significant fines for inaccur

Double-check your merger info - or face significant fines for inaccuracies

02.05.2019 NL law

Failing to submit complete and accurate information to the European Commission during a merger investigation can have costly consequences. Two years after Facebook was fined EUR 110 million for providing incorrect or misleading information on its WhatsApp acquisition, the European Commission has fined General Electric EUR 52 million for submitting incorrect information during the review of its acquisition of LM Wind.

Even though precisely how the Commission discovers these inaccuracies may vary – of its own accord, through third parties or from the notifying parties themselves – these fines suggest that it will find out eventually. This is all the more reason for notifying companies to supply correct and complete information. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines.

General Electric (GE) notified the Commission on 11 January 2017 about its acquisition of LM Wind. During the merger investigation, the Commission asked GE to submit information about relevant product developments. GE did not provide any information on the development of a second power output wind turbine for offshore applications. A third party informed the Commission that GE did in fact offer a higher power output offshore wind turbine to potential customers. GE then withdrew its notification and re-submitted it on 13 February 2017, this time including complete information on a future 12 megawatt wind turbine. The Commission approved the merger on 20 March 2017.

In July 2017, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to GE claiming that GE violated its procedural obligations under the Merger Regulation. This was followed by a fine in April 2018 for negligently providing incorrect information in the merger notification form. According to the Commission the infringement obstructed a comprehensive assessment of the transaction.

This decision is in line with the Commission's recent focus on procedural breaches of merger control. In April 2018, Altice was fined EUR 124.5 million for gun jumping. Investigations on two other cases on procedural fairness, against Canon and Merck and Sigma-Aldrich, are still ongoing.

Receiving correct and complete information is essential for a timely and effective merger review. Any failure to do so may lead to a fine of up to 1% of annual worldwide turnover. The amount of the fine for a breach of these procedural aspects of the merger control process depends on the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement. Another important factor for determining the level of the fine is whether or not the company is aware of the importance of the information to the process. Companies are therefore well-advised to double-check the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the Commission throughout the whole merger notification process.

 

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

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

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
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