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

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring