Potential competition in merger control; how soon is now?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-36
Author(s):  
Pedro Caro de Sousa ◽  
Chris Pike
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-127
Author(s):  
Joe Williams ◽  
Stephen Wisking

Loss of potential, rather than actual, competition as a theory of harm in merger control has been a hot topic in competition policy debate. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) does not face the same jurisdictional constraints that have prevented some of its peer agencies from investigating transactions which give rise to loss of potential competition concerns, and it has adopted a number of recent merger decisions in this area, in many cases after the conclusion of a detailed Phase 2 review. This article outlines the applicable legal framework and explores the CMA's recent decisional practice by reference to three categories of transaction potentially giving rise to a loss of potential competition where the concern is that absent the transaction: (1) one party would have been a market entrant; (2) one or both parties would have become a greater competitive constraint on the other; and/or (3) there was an alternative purchaser which would have made the target more competitive. It then summarizes the CMA's approach to assessing such transactions, including its intention, ability and incentive framework. It concludes by setting out the case for revision to the CMA's Merger Assessment Guidelines to reflect explicitly its approach to these types of transactions.


Author(s):  
Rex Ahdar

Merger control has been marked by two major changes to both procedural and substantive law; the mandatory pre-merger notification regime was becoming increasingly burdensome for both businesses and the Commission. In 1990, the pre-merger notification system was abruptly abolished in favour of a voluntary notification system. The so-called “strike down” system already existed in Australia, but the change was probably due less to harmonization and more to some effective lobbying by big business. Regarding the substantive test, the “dominance” standard proved to be highly permissive. Few mergers were halted and the presence of very large market shares post-merger could still be overcome by an unduly generous view of the likelihood of new entry disciplining the merged firm. An idealized version of potential competition (contestability theory) held sway. In 2001, the test in s 47 was changed to the SLC threshold in an effort to toughen up the law. Horizontal mergers, increasing the likelihood of collusion (due to increased market concentration), could now be caught. Yet it is doubtful that the sterner test actually resulted in more mergers being prohibited. This chapter briefly explores the experience of vertical and conglomerate mergers as well as a new section (s 47A) that addresses overseas mergers that have effects upon New Zealand markets.


2002 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kravtseniouk

This paper shows the principal features of merger control in selected transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), namely Hungary, Romania and Slovenia, by applying case study methodology. The presented findings are based on the analysis of Hungarian, Romanian and Slovenian competition law and merger rulings reached by the Competition Offices of these countries. A substantial part of the conclusions is drawn from a sample of 42 merger applications processed by the Office of Economic Competition of Hungary between 1994 and 2000. The results of empirical analysis demonstrate the considerable flexibility of merger control in the studied countries, its orientation towards the future of domestic markets and a close link with industrial policy. The paper also highlights the areas of interdependence of competition policy and transition and argues that merger control in the studied CEE countries may be regarded as currently adequate to the requirements imposed by transition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document