Short Reads

EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

EU merger control: Dutch clause to catch future killer acquisitions

01.10.2020 NL law

Competition Commissioner Vestager presented a sneak peak of her plans for the future of EU merger control on the 30th anniversary of the EU Merger Regulation. The proposed plans include a simplification of the notification procedure and a new approach towards the system of referral to ensure that significant transactions, particularly in the digital and pharmaceutical industries, no longer escape Commission scrutiny.

The Commission calls upon national competition authorities to refer transactions to it that remain below notification thresholds, but potentially have an effect on competition.

The intended policy shift will bring about more uncertainty on whether, when, how and by whom intended mergers will be reviewed. It is therefore advisable for merging parties to assess for all transactions – even those falling below EU and national thresholds – any potential impact on competition in the single market. More guidance is expected before the policy comes into effect around the middle of 2021.  

The Commission’s plans

In her speech, Commissioner Vestager outlines the need for a simpler assessment of transactions under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), including a relaxing of information requirements, a broader application of the simplified procedure and fewer pre-notification obligations for no-issue transactions.

In line with the recommendations made in the Report on Competition Policy in the digital era, the Commissioner furthermore notes that some mergers that could seriously affect competition currently escape scrutiny by the Commission due to the companies’ turnover not meeting the EU thresholds. In this regard, she mentions so-called “killer acquisitions”, in which an incumbent buys a potential rival that is still in its nascent stage, with the aim of terminating the business after acquisition. Where Germany and Austria have responded to this (perceived) enforcement gap by introducing value thresholds, Commissioner Vestager indicates that for the EU such thresholds ‘do not seem like the most proportionate solution’ (in line with the responses to the Consultation on Evaluation of procedural and jurisdictional aspects of EU merger control). Instead, she refers to an answer hiding in plain sight: encouraging greater usage of the ‘Dutch clause’ of Article 22 EUMR. In the Commissioner’s plans, national competition authorities will be encouraged to refer transactions that are ‘worth reviewing on the EU level – whether or not those authorities had the power to review the case themselves’

The revival of the Dutch clause and its consequences for merging companies

The Commission’s ‘revival’ of the Dutch clause of Article 22 EUMR is remarkable. The provision was historically included in the EUMR to overcome the absence of national merger control regimes. Over time, the Commission has consistently discouraged national competition authorities from relying on the article. In the White Paper towards more effective EU merger control, the Commission even considered eliminating the possibility of referring cases where national notification thresholds are not met.

In the Commission’s new plans, Article 22 will serve as a tool to target transactions that remain below notification thresholds, but potentially have an effect on competition. The plans thereby seem to have a specific focus on transactions in the digital and pharmaceutical industries. By using Article 22, the Commission stretches the tool-kit of the EUMR to its maximum and tactically circumvents the strenuous political process of revising the EUMR (which would be necessary in the case of the aforementioned value thresholds).

Unpredictability

As a result, however, merging companies will be confronted with numerous uncertainties in their deal-making process. They can no longer predictably determine if, when or by whom their transaction will be scrutinised, what the overall timing will look like, and what the potential impact of other merger control related aspects (such as suspension obligations) will be. In her speech, the Commissioner promises to provide more guidance soon – which will hopefully also address the abovementioned aspects – before the policy enters into effect in the middle of 2021.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of October 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

08.06.2021 NL law
De Europese Klimaatwet uitgelicht

Short Reads - Op 21 april 2021 is een voorlopig akkoord bereikt over de Europese Klimaatwet. Deze Klimaatwet kan worden gezien als de kern van de Europese Green Deal, die in december 2019 werd gepubliceerd door de Europese Commissie. Het overstijgende doel van deze instrumenten is om een klimaatneutraal Europa te bewerkstelligen in 2050. De Europese Klimaatwet zorgt ervoor dat deze klimaatneutraliteitsdoelstelling in een Europese verordening wordt vastgelegd. Dit blogbericht gaat nader in op de Europese Klimaatwet en legt uit wat dit met zich brengt.

Read more

22.07.2021 NL law
Towards a European legal framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence

Short Reads - Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Although the use of artificial intelligence is nothing new and dates back to Alan Turing (the godfather of computational theory), prominent researchers – along with Stephen Hawking – have expressed their concerns about the unregulated use of AI systems and their impact on society as we know it.

Read more

08.06.2021 NL law
Actualiteiten milieustrafrecht: zorgelijke ontwikkelingen

Short Reads - Vrijdag 28 mei jl. hadden wij een inspirerend webinar over actualiteiten op het gebied van milieustrafrecht. Wij spraken gedurende 90 minuten onder meer over aansprakelijkheden van bestuurders, de zorgplichten, incidentenrapportages vanuit strafrechtelijk- en bestuursrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more