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

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission’s record fine for gun jumping upheld

Short Reads - Pre-closing covenants protecting the target’s value or commercial integrity pending merger clearance from the European Commission must be drafted carefully. The General Court confirmed the Commission’s record-breaking fines on Altice for violating the EU Merger Regulation’s notification and standstill obligations. According to the General Court, the mere possibility of exercising decisive influence over the target can result in a gun jumping breach.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
ACM walks the walk: first-ever vertical price coordination fine

Short Reads - The Dutch Competition Authority (“ACM”) has claimed a first victim in its vertical restraints battle. Samsung Electronics was fined nearly EUR 40 million for having meddled in the online resale prices for televisions at seven retailers. Compared to the European Commission’s fines on four consumer electronics producers for resale price maintenance (“RPM”), the ACM’s summary decision seems to refer to a ‘light’ version of RPM: systematic price coordination without any threats, sanctions or incentives for the retailers to stick to the price.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Commission reveals first piece of antitrust sustainability puzzle

Short Reads - The European Commission has published a Policy Brief setting out its preliminary views on how to fit the European Green Deal’s sustainability goals into the EU competition rules. Companies keen to be green may be left in limbo by a looming clash with more far-reaching proposals from national competition authorities. More pieces of the antitrust sustainability puzzle will fall into place as soon as the ongoing review of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation is finalised.

Read more

07.10.2021 NL law
Court of Appeal provides guidance for further course of proceedings in prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 27 July 2021, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued an interim judgment in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation, ruling on three issues: (i) the obligation of claimant to furnish facts; (ii) the assignment of claims; and (iii) the liability of the parent companies. In short, the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant Deutsche Bahn another opportunity to supplement the facts needed to substantiate its claims in the next phase of the proceedings.

Read more

24.09.2021 EU law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”; (2) alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new term of use

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present two interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) a judgment of the CJEU considering that the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”, and (2) an alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new terms of use.

Read more