Public Interest in Merger Control: The Lay of the Land

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-226
Author(s):  
Jenn Mellott ◽  
Ruzica Ciric

In recent years, regulators and politicians have raised questions about whether merger control is “fit for purpose” in the modern economy, and in particular about whether the consumer welfare standard remains the appropriate lens through which to assess transactions, or whether merger control should consider the potential impact of a transaction on broader public interest (PI) objectives, such as employment, the environment, data privacy, national security, or industrial or trade policy. Many merger control regimes globally already include a public interest component, and in thinking about whether it would be reasonable or appropriate to add or strengthen the PI component of a merger control regime, it may be helpful to look at regimes that already include a PI component to consider the ways in which this may be structured and whether these standards are likely to be successful in achieving PI aims. This piece surveys the existing merger control regimes with a PI component to identify lessons that may be useful for jurisdictions considering whether and how to expand a merger control regime to include PI.

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-73
Author(s):  
Ioannis Kokkoris

The article will discuss the boundaries of UK merger control set by national security concerns against the background of public interest considerations in the decisional practice of the competent authorities. The article will first present an overview of the existing legal framework for considering public interest when reviewing mergers and acquisitions in strategic industries or companies. It will then present the main precedents where issues of national security were raised and will discuss how the CMA and the Secretary of State assessed these transactions from both a competition and national security angle. Finally, the article will present the recent legislative initiative by the UK Government to extend national security grounds reflects a new approach towards FDI.


2021 ◽  
pp. 169-200
Author(s):  
David Reader

In Chapter 7, David Reader observes that the introduction of the Enterprise Act 2002 formally ended a much maligned public interest approach to merger control in the UK, oft-criticized for the uncertainty permeated by ministerial decision-making. In its place came a new competition-based test to be applied by independent competition authorities with new powers and resources at their disposal. Despite encountering some teething problems as the authorities sought to interpret their respective roles at Phases 1 and 2, the reforms have proven largely successful in delivering one of the most transparent and predictable merger regimes in the world. This chapter reflects on the evolution of UK merger control under the Enterprise Act, observing that a combination of major—and finer-tuning of the competition authority’s Phase 1 enforcement powers has enabled it to effectively deliver upon its mandate. New challenges lie in wait, however, and Reader stresses that the CMA must be allocated the resources and statutory remit to contend with the increased workload implications presented by Brexit and the novel theories of harm associated with mergers in the digital sector. Of further concern are recent reforms to extend the national security public interest ground, which risk a return to the ‘dark ages’ of opaque ministerial decision-making if further safeguards are not implemented.


Addiction ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Leon ◽  
Elad Yom‐Tov ◽  
Anne M. Johnson ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Elizabeth Williamson ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Broadhurst ◽  
Keri Landau

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review whether current learning disability market position statements (MPS) are actually helping to shape the market and explore their implications for people with learning disabilities and their families. Design/methodology/approach Published learning disability MPS were identified via the Institute of Public Care’s MPS database. The quality of the MPS was analysed using a good practice checklist developed by a range of stakeholders. Findings Learning disability MPS are not currently fit for purpose. They demonstrate that local authorities are not fully engaging in their market-shaping duties, as required under The Care Act 2014. It is suggested that this is in part due to the lack of recognition that market shaping is a council-wide responsibility and can only be successful if senior officers across the council (and their partners) acknowledge this and are held accountable. Unless this happens, people with learning disabilities will continue to lack the enablers that support them to lead the lives they choose in their communities. Originality/value This is the first review of the quality and potential impact of learning disability MPS.


2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-552
Author(s):  
Andreas Stephan

This article asks whether the merger of Lloyds TSB and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in 2008, on public interest grounds, marked the failure of an enduring economics-based system of merger regulation. It argues that, far from marking a failure, the Lloyds/HBOS merger highlights the importance of only allowing public interest interventions on exceptional grounds in specific industries. Economics-based merger control is transparent and preferable to general public interest assessments, which are unpredictable and open to abuse. Concerns raised which support arguments for greater political interventions can be more effectively addressed in other ways.


Author(s):  
Vladimir M. Kutovoi ◽  

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has seriously affected the international investment policies of the G20 countries. There has been a growing trend to introduce measures with reference to the protection of national security aiming at countering threats that may be associated with foreign investment. Given the role of international investment in alleviating the economic crisis, governments should continue to improve the investment climate while protecting their national security interests.


Author(s):  
Olivier Cadot ◽  
Julien Gourdon ◽  
Sanjay Kathuria ◽  
Mariem Malouche ◽  
Zaidi Sattar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document