Merger litigation: more recent developments

Q4 Social Sciences
M. O’Regan
{"title":"Merger litigation: more recent developments","authors":"M. O’Regan","doi":"10.4337/clj.2021.04.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been a recent increase in merger-related litigation before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, driven largely by an increase in merger prohibition decisions taken by the Competition and Markets Authority. An earlier article considered several merger judgments of the CAT. The present article considers the outcomes of subsequent appeals in two of these cases, Facebook (concerning the CMA’s powers to impose interim enforcement orders) and JD Sports (in which the CAT quashed the CMA’s finding of a substantive lessening of competition). It also considers the outcome of two then pending challenges to CMA decisions to prohibit mergers, FNZ and Sabre. In particular, the Sabre case concerned the CMA’s power to assert jurisdiction, under the share of supply test, to review a merger between two American companies in circumstances where the target company had no direct revenues from customers located in the UK. The judgments in Facebook and Sabre are likely to be of particular relevance to parties that choose not to notify voluntarily their merger to the CMA and so expose themselves to the risk of the CMA identifying and then opening an own initiative investigation into that merger; they confirm that the CMA has a broad discretion in applying the share of supply test and in adopting an IEO of broad scope to the businesses of both merger parties.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2021.04.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a recent increase in merger-related litigation before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, driven largely by an increase in merger prohibition decisions taken by the Competition and Markets Authority. An earlier article considered several merger judgments of the CAT. The present article considers the outcomes of subsequent appeals in two of these cases, Facebook (concerning the CMA’s powers to impose interim enforcement orders) and JD Sports (in which the CAT quashed the CMA’s finding of a substantive lessening of competition). It also considers the outcome of two then pending challenges to CMA decisions to prohibit mergers, FNZ and Sabre. In particular, the Sabre case concerned the CMA’s power to assert jurisdiction, under the share of supply test, to review a merger between two American companies in circumstances where the target company had no direct revenues from customers located in the UK. The judgments in Facebook and Sabre are likely to be of particular relevance to parties that choose not to notify voluntarily their merger to the CMA and so expose themselves to the risk of the CMA identifying and then opening an own initiative investigation into that merger; they confirm that the CMA has a broad discretion in applying the share of supply test and in adopting an IEO of broad scope to the businesses of both merger parties.
合并诉讼:最新进展
竞争上诉法庭最近受理的与合并有关的诉讼有所增加,这主要是由于竞争与市场管理局作出的禁止合并的决定有所增加。早先的一篇文章考虑了禁止酷刑委员会的几项合并判决。本文考虑了其中两起案件的后续上诉结果,即Facebook(涉及CMA实施临时执行令的权力)和京东体育(CAT撤销了CMA关于大幅减少竞争的裁决)。它还考虑了当时对CMA禁止合并决定的两项未决挑战的结果,即FNZ和Sabre。特别是,Sabre案涉及CMA有权根据供应份额测试,在目标公司没有来自英国客户的直接收入的情况下,对两家美国公司之间的合并进行审查。脸书和Sabre的判决可能与那些选择不自愿向CMA通知其合并的各方特别相关,从而使自己面临CMA识别并主动调查该合并的风险;他们确认,CMA在对合并双方的业务应用供应份额测试和采用范围广泛的IEO方面拥有广泛的自由裁量权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信