Reforming EU merger control to capture ‘killer acquisitions’ – the case for caution

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-67
Author(s):  
Nicholas Levy ◽  
Henry Mostyn ◽  
Bianca Buzatu

This article examines whether EU merger control rules should be recalibrated to address concerns said to arise from acquisitions of innovative start-ups by established digital platforms – commonly referred to as ‘killer’ or ‘nascent’ acquisitions. It assesses various proposals designed to remedy two failings: a perceived failure to review anti-competitive transactions due to inadequate jurisdictional thresholds and a perceived failure to detect competition problems during the merger review process. It argues that, given the large number of transactions already subject to merger control, any expansion of existing rules should occur only where there is clear evidence of a significant enforcement gap. In the view of the authors, there is no persuasive evidence that a material number of anti-competitive digital acquisitions are escaping antitrust scrutiny, that the analytical framework applied by the European Commission should be significantly changed, or that the methodological tools employed to review concentrations are unfit for purpose. The authors therefore disfavour wide-ranging changes to the EU's rules and instead propose a series of incremental improvements to ensure that EU merger enforcement is tailored to the digital age.

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-30
Author(s):  
Mario Todino ◽  
Geoffroy van de Walle ◽  
Lucia Stoican

In a string of recent merger decisions, culminating in the Dow/DuPont case, the European Commission has profoundly revisited its traditional analysis of innovation and, ultimately, introduced what some authors have labeled “a novel theory of harm in EU merger policy.” According to this theory, the Commission does not look at harm to innovation on a specific product market in which parties are developing similar pipeline products, but adopts a general assessment of harm to innovation, unrelated to a specific product market and without considering potential anticompetitive effects on this basis. The purpose of this article is to show that over the last few years, the European Commission has been progressively departing from a “traditional” theory of harm in its assessment of mergers affecting innovation. In particular, we argue that the novel theory of harm developed in Dow/DuPont, based on a generic prejudice to innovation, is the landing place of a long journey through which the Commission has progressively altered the analytical framework applicable to traditional cases affecting pipeline products/potential competitors. And while this stance may be inspired by a legitimate policy goal, it brings the Commission on a collision route with the principles of causation and symmetry governing European Union merger control analysis.


2021 ◽  
pp. 871-958
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter examines EU merger control. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of EU merger control. Section 3 discusses the jurisdictional rules which determine whether a particular merger should be investigated by the European Commission in Brussels or by the national competition authorities (‘the NCAs’) of the Member States. Section 4 deals with the procedural considerations such as the mandatory pre-notification to the Commission of mergers that have a Union dimension and the timetable within which the Commission must operate. Section 5 discusses the substantive analysis of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), and section 6 explains the procedure whereby the Commission may authorise a merger on the basis of commitments, often referred to as remedies, offered by the parties to address its competition concerns. The subsequent sections describe the Commission’s powers of investigation and enforcement, judicial review of Commission decisions by the EU Courts and cooperation between the Commission and other competition authorities, both within and outside the EU. The chapter concludes with an examination of how the EUMR merger control provisions work in practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-161
Author(s):  
Stephen Whitfield ◽  
Richard J. Brown ◽  
Ingrid Rogers

There has been an increased focus of the European Commission and numerous national competition authorities on data-related mergers, which also fits more generally in the context of a broader global competition law focus on the ‘FAANGs’ (i.e., Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) and the wider tech sector. This article considers the impact of data on EU merger control and explores the theories of harm and legal frameworks which have been applied and developed in considering data-related competition concerns, in particular the notable developments in the Commission's recent consideration of Apple's acquisition of Shazam. The article considers that the impact of these developments is that data-related mergers should no longer be assessed by reference to traditional economic indicators such as market shares and concentration levels only, but rather also in the context of the broader global competition law focus on big tech.


2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Götz Drauz

Abstract The EU merger control system is currently undergoing a reform. Alongside proposed changes to the EC Merger Regulation, the European Commission adopted draft guidelines for the appraisal of horizontal mergers. One important issue of the guidelines is the treatment of efficiencies within the appraisal of mergers. The purpose of this article is to analyse some of the key issues.


Author(s):  
Dzmitry Bartalevich

Abstract In EU merger control, the European Commission is empowered by Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 to regulate changes in market structure by deciding whether two or more firms may merge, combine, or consolidate their businesses into one. These decisions affect various market players, including major EU and non-EU businesses, as well as vast product and geographic markets. Offering a network perspective on the cleared merger and acquisition transactions in Phase I decisions under Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (20 January 2004–01 July 2015), this article aims to investigate the overall composition of mergers and acquisitions in terms of their industry sectors and domiciles and to identify the types of firms that acquire more targets than other firms (that is, more expansive firms). The analysis is conducted by using data from the European Commission (601 transactions) and Bureau van Dijk (992 transactions).


Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter provides an overview of EU merger control and the jurisdictional rules which determine whether a particular merger should be investigated by the European Commission or by the national competition authorities. It deals with procedural considerations such as the mandatory pre-notification to the Commission of mergers that have a Union dimension and the timetable within which the Commission must operate. It discusses the substantive analysis of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation (‘the EUMR’) and explains the procedure for the Commission to authorise a merger on the basis of commitments offered by the parties to address its competition concerns. Finally, it describes the Commission’s powers of investigation and enforcement, judicial review of Commission decisions by the EU Courts and cooperation between the Commission and other competition authorities, both within and outside the EU. The chapter concludes with an examination of how the EUMR merger control provisions work in practice.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Bretz ◽  
Marie Leppard

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document