ANTITRUST ALERT
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
Mergers & Acquisitions
Subscribe to Mergers & Acquisitions's Posts

FTC Emphasizes Competitive Issues Arising From Partial Interest Acquisitions

by | May 11, 2016 | ,

On May 9, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) posted an article summarizing recent developments and areas of competitive sensitivity in the acquisition of partial equity interests.  Most antitrust challenges to mergers or acquisitions involve situations in which an acquiror takes control of the target company.  However, substantive antitrust issues also can arise from acquisitions of less than controlling interests.  The FTC has previously sought substantial remedies in acquisitions of minority interests in a competitor.  These remedies have included imposing firewalls, altering companies’ ownership interests to become passive investors, or seeking divestitures.

The FTC’s post, which can be found here, outlines three ways in which partial-interest acquisitions in a competitor could lessen competition.  First, an entity could use its interest—through representatives on a competitor’s board, for example—to affect decisions of the target.  Second, an acquiring company’s partial ownership in its competitor could reduce the acquiring company’s incentives to compete aggressively.  This feature arises because, by virtue of holding an interest in its rival, a company can still achieve an economic gain even if it does not win a competition or make a sale if the company in which it holds an equity interest obtains that business.  Third, an entity could gain access to non-public, competitively sensitive information of its competitor, increasing the risk of coordinated conduct.

None of these theories are new, and they are contained in the 2010 FTC / DOJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines.  Nevertheless, the FTC’s posting provides a helpful reminder for companies contemplating transactions that they need to evaluate not only the obvious anticompetitive effects raised by acquisitions of control, but also the less obvious theories of competitive harm.



read more

EU: Merger case cleared following offer of FRAND technology license

by | Apr 25, 2016 | , , , ,

On 20 April 2016, the European Commission (Commission) cleared, under its merger control rules, the acquisition of Equens and PaySquare by Worldline subject to, amongst others, a commitment to license technology to any customer interested, at Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) conditions.

Worldline is a French provider of payment services and terminals, financial processing and software licensing and e-transactions services. Equens offers a number of services across the value chain of both payments processing and cards processing services. Its fully-owned subsidiary, PaySquare, provides merchant acquiring services.  This transaction combines two large payment systems operators, active across the full value chain in both payment processing and card processing services.

The EU antitrust regulator was concerned that the acquisition would have raised certain issues with respect to, in particular, merchant acquiring services in Germany.  The Commission’s market investigation revealed that Worldline’s Poseidon software and modules are used by the majority of German network service providers (including PaySquare), there are no other readily available alternatives to Poseidon and post-transaction, Worldline would have the ability and the incentives to favour its new subsidiary PaySquare, in terms of price and quality, over other network service providers relying on Poseidon.

In order to address the Commission’s concerns, the companies offered a commitment to grant licenses for the Poseidon software on FRAND terms during a period of 10 years. Specifically, this commitment consists of the following elements:

  • The granting of a license for Poseidon and its modules to third-party network service providers under FRAND terms and capping of the maintenance fees
  • A monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with FRAND terms by a licensing trustee and by a group composed of network service providers
  • Giving access to the Poseidon source code under certain conditions
  • Transferring the governance of the ZVT protocol, on which most German point of sale terminals run, to an independent not for profit industry organisation

The Commission’s decision to accept this commitment is interesting for a number reasons; the Commission generally has a strong preference for structural rather than behavioural undertakings, FRAND obligations are typically applicable to technologies that are standardised, and this case presents the first time that a commitment to licence on FRAND terms has been used as a remedy under the EU Merger Regulation.



read more

House Passes GOP-Backed SMARTER ACT Aiming to Harmonize Merger Review Process for FTC and DOJ

by | Apr 4, 2016 | , ,

On March 23, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act by a vote of 235-171, despite strenuous objections from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) review proposed mergers and acquisitions.  Currently, the FTC can challenge transactions under different processes and standards than the DOJ, and those procedures provide several advantages to the FTC.  The SMARTER Act would neutralize those advantages for the FTC by: (1) eliminating the FTC’s ability to use its internal administrative proceedings to challenge unconsummated transactions; and (2) standardizing the criteria for the FTC and DOJ to obtain a preliminary injunction to block a merger in federal court.

The FTC has the authority to pursue administrative relief to challenge a transaction.  Even if the FTC is denied a preliminary injunction in federal court, the agency may continue to seek to block or unwind a transaction in an administrative trial at the FTC’s own in-house court.  That process creates two procedural advantages for the FTC.  First, the FTC can continue to challenge a transaction even after a federal district court denies an injunction.  Second, because the full trial will take place in the FTC’s court, some courts have said that the the standard the FTC uses to obtain a federal court injunction is lower than the standard the DOJ must meet.  The courts will generally grant the FTC an injunction if the case “raise[s] questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground” for a full hearing “by the FTC in the first instance and ultimately by the Court of Appeals.”  Under that standard, the FTC need not show a substantial likelihood of success at the trial on the merits or irreparable harm.

The DOJ can only challenge transactions in federal court proceedings.  The DOJ can seek a preliminary injunction under Section 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 25) on the grounds that the transaction is likely to substantially lessen competition.  The DOJ is subject to a traditional equitable injunction standard including criteria such as a showing of a substantial likelihood of success and the potential for irreparable harm.

Supporters of the SMARTER Act argue that reform is necessary to ensure consistent and fair application of the antitrust laws.  SMARTER Act supporters also argue that courts apply a more lenient standard to the FTC for blocking a transaction than to the DOJ.  However, those that oppose the SMARTER Act argue that in practice, courts impose the same standards on the FTC and DOJ during injunction hearings.  Those against the SMARTER Act also argue that workload statistics compiled in the DOJ and FTC Annual Competition Reports actually demonstrate that mergers reviewed by the DOJ are more likely to be challenged or receive a Second Request than mergers reviewed by the FTC.  FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez expressed concern that the SMARTER Act “risks undermining the effectiveness of the FTC.”  Chairwoman Ramirez also [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dutch Competition Authority Fines Cold-Storage Companies for Exchange of Information in the Context of Merger Talks

by | Mar 31, 2016 | ,

On 23 March 2016, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) announced that it had fined four cold-storage firms for having put in place anticompetitive arrangements while in extended merger talks with one another.  (case number: 13.0698.31|15.0710.31|15.0327.31|15.0328.31). In addition, ACM fined five individuals for their personal involvement in these anticompetitive arrangements. The case at hand serves as a reminder that gun jumping, which is seen as an infringement of the merger control rules, is not the only antitrust risk associated with an M&A transaction.

While in discussions about a possible merger between them, the cold-storage firms frequently exchanged commercially sensitive information such as the price for food storage, current utilization rates of their storage facilities and whether or not they were looking for work. This information exchange, which took place between 2006 and 2009, sometimes resulted in price fixing, customer allocation or bid rigging. (more…)



read more

Update: Peculiarities of the Merger Filing Requirements in Germany and Austria

by | Mar 18, 2016 | , ,

As many dealmakers doing business in Europe have realized, German and Austrian merger filing requirements are sometimes a bit tricky, and in some respects different from the rules in place at EU level and in other EU member states. For instance, it may be that a transaction has to be notified in one of these two countries although the transaction leads to a mere minority shareholding or one of the undertakings involved achieved (almost) no local turnover.

In this context, it should be noted that companies violating a filing obligation are subject to appreciable fines and run the risk that the closing acts of the transaction are null and void under civil law. Particularly after the recent Spar decision of the Austrian Supreme Cartel Court, which led to a tenfold increase of the fine originally imposed by the Austrian Cartel Court, it can be expected that the amount of fines for competition law breaches will generally increase in Austria. Against this background, it is worth noting some existing peculiarities and some new developments regarding the filing thresholds:

(more…)



read more

Italian Competition Authority Updates Merger Control Turnover Thresholds

by | Mar 15, 2016 | ,

The Italian Competition Authority has updated its merger control turnover thresholds. Effective 14 March 2016, Section 16(1) of Law no. 287 of 10 October 1990 requires prior notification of all mergers and acquisitions where both the following conditions are fulfilled:

  • Aggregate turnover in Italy of all undertakings involved is above € 495 million (revised under the terms of the same Section 16(1)); and
  • Aggregate turnover in Italy of the target company is above € 50 million (as revised)

Italy’s merger control thresholds are adjusted annually to take into account increases in the GDP deflator index. The updated thresholds will be published in the Competition Authority’s Bulletin once this increase in index is announced officially.



read more

FTC’s Feinstein Declines to Provide Safe Harbor Guidance for Low GUPPIs

by | Mar 4, 2016 | ,

At a recent panel discussion during George Mason Law Review’s annual antitrust symposium, Deborah Feinstein, director of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Bureau of Competition, was asked what levels of gross upwards pricing pressure index (GUPPI) could raise concern in the FTC’s merger review process.  Feinstein declined to provide a specific level that would raise concern, thereby rejecting movement towards a safe harbor for merging parties in markets where the GUPPI is particularly low.

The FTC’s policy regarding a GUPPI safe harbor has a substantial impact on its investigations of mergers with potential unilateral price effects.  Generally unilateral price effects exist where the merged entity has the incentive to raise the price of the products of one or both firms.  One way to conceptualize the potential unilateral effects of a merger is to consider the opposing forces of downwards and upwards pricing pressures.  The elimination of competition between merging firms creates upwards pricing pressure.  The benefits gained from efficiencies generate downward pricing pressure.  GUPPI is an economic measure that attempts to estimate the upwards pricing pressure for a particular product resulting from a merger.  Three market conditions lead to a higher GUPPI: 1) a high diversion ratio to the merging partner’s product; 2) a higher margin for the merging partner’s product; and 3) a higher price for the merging partner’s product (Moresi 2010). (more…)



read more

Recent Judgments Illustrate How the European Commission Can Correct Its Errors Post-Annulment

by | Feb 22, 2016 | , ,

As a general proposition, when the validity of a European Commission antitrust decision is challenged before the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), the procedure is one of judicial review, not a retrial on the merits (although the GCEU does have special jurisdiction to increase or reduce the amount of any fine). Thus there are only three possible outcomes: annulment of the Commission’s decision; variation in the amount of any fine, upwards or downwards; or rejection of the challenge altogether.

In the case of annulment, Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires that the Commission “take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment” of the GCEU. Provided that the limitation period has not expired, the Commission may take a new decision on the case, taking care to avoid the illegalities identified by the GCEU in respect of the first decision. The new decision can be different from the first decision, as illustrated by the recent judgments in Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba, but it can also be substantially the same, as illustrated by the recent judgment in Éditions Odile Jacob.

The Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba cases arose out of the gas insulated switchgear cartel. Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba were fined for their participation in the cartel. The companies challenged the Commission’s decision imposing the fines, and the GCEU annulled the fines imposed individually on Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba on the ground that the Commission had infringed the principle of equal treatment by choosing, when calculating the fine, a reference year for Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba which was different from that chosen for the European participants in the infringement.

Following the annulment, the Commission addressed a letter of facts to Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba informing them of its intention to adopt a new decision remedying the unequal treatment criticised by the GCEU. Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba submitted comments on the Commission’s letter of facts and had meetings with the Commission team responsible for the case. Subsequently the Commission adopted a new decision imposing lower individual fines on Mitsubishi Electric and Toshiba than in the first decision.

(more…)



read more

The EU Court of Justice Brings to an End Odile Jacob’s Fight Against Lagardère’s Purchase of Vivendi Universal Publishing

by | Jan 29, 2016 | , ,

By its judgment of 28 January 2016 (C-514/14 P, Editions Odile Jacob SAS v Commission), the European Court of Justice (Court) upheld the General Court of the European Union’s (GCEU) ruling with respect to each of the grounds raised by Editions Odile Jacob (Odile Jacob) thereby dismissing Odile Jacob’s appeal.

The case concerned the sale, in 2002, of Vivendi Universal’s subsidiary Vivendi Universal Publishing (VUP) to the Lagardère Group (Lagardère).

The European Commission (Commission) authorized the concentration in 2004, subject to undertakings by Lagardère. Specifically, Lagardère undertook to divest a significant amount of VUP assets. Lagardère thus approached several undertakings potentially interested in purchasing those assets. Odile Jacob was one of the undertakings that expressed an interest in the acquisition of the divested assets. However, Lagardère accepted the purchase offer made by Wendel Investissement (Wendel) whom the Commission approved as a suitable purchaser. Odile Jacob challenged the Commission’s decision authorizing the concentration and the decision approving Wendel as a suitable purchaser. In 2010, the GCEU confirmed the decision authorizing the concentration but annulled the decision approving Wendel as a suitable purchaser on the ground that it had been adopted on the basis of a report drawn up by a trustee that was not deemed independent. This judgment was upheld by the Court in 2012.

Following the GCEU’s judgment, Lagardère made a further request to the Commission for the approval of Wendel by proposing a new trustee who was subsequently approved by the Commission, in 2011, with effect from 2004. Odile Jacob brought another action for annulment of this approval decision which was dismissed by the GCEU by judgment of 5 September 2014 (T-471/11).

In its judgment of 28 January 2016, the Court upheld the September 2014 judgment of the GCEU.

First, the Court considered that the GCEU correctly ruled that, in order to give full effect to the judgments of 2010, the Commission was only required to approve a new trustee responsible for drawing up a new report evaluating Wendel’s candidature and to assess this candidature on the basis of this new report. In this respect, the Court found that the Commission neither had to revoke the decision authorizing the concentration nor to repeat the whole procedure from the date on which Lagardère appointed the first trustee.

Second, the Court ruled that the GCEU had not erred in law by declaring that the 2011 Commission decision, which approved again Wendel as an acquirer of VUP’s assets, could be retroactive. Indeed, the Court found that the Commission could adopt retroactive decisions where this is required by the intended aim and where the principle of protection of the legitimate expectations of the parties is properly observed. Here, the Court confirmed that these conditions had been met in the case: the new retroactive approval decision was intended inter alia to fill the legal vacuum created by the annulment of the first approval decision. In that regard, the Court found that Odile Jacob failed to demonstrate that there were no grounds that could justify [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022