私募股权“俱乐部交易”与欧洲竞争政策:入门

Faysal Barrachdi
{"title":"私募股权“俱乐部交易”与欧洲竞争政策:入门","authors":"Faysal Barrachdi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1137085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the US, private equity 'club deals' have raised controversy as to potential risks of price fixing by consorting private equity firms. Surprisingly in Europe, private equity has managed to slip through the notorious far-reaching hand of the European Commission. This purpose of this paper is to shed an initial light on the issue of private equity consortia and how they fit in the contemporary European competition regime. Two essential competition concerns that have been brought up (1) private equity consortia entail a Monopsony setting. In an auction, the number of bidders are restricted, as a result that the bidding prices will drop below the competition price. (2) Private Equity consortia members share sensitive information in an auction in order to rig the bidding process (bid-rigging). Both concerns are examined against the background of the current European competition law framework. The first concern is examined in the light of the contemporary E.C. Merger Control regime. The second competition concern is subjected to article 81 §1 EC. The outcome of this paper is that there are, hitherto, no genuine competition impediments by private equity consortia. It appeared that the counterfactual used in a Monoposony setting did not apply in the case of private equity consortia. Similar to the US, in Europe private equity consortia operate in a plural market. The trend of private equity consortium is often compensated by other players that also participate (strategic players). Regarding the bid-rigging concerns, there was no actual empirical data available to determine the activities in Europe. We therefore assume that these practices have not (yet) occurred in the European situation.","PeriodicalId":285786,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Law: Rule-Making & Rule Interpretation; International Courts (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Equity 'Club Deals' and European Competition Policy: A Primer\",\"authors\":\"Faysal Barrachdi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1137085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the US, private equity 'club deals' have raised controversy as to potential risks of price fixing by consorting private equity firms. Surprisingly in Europe, private equity has managed to slip through the notorious far-reaching hand of the European Commission. This purpose of this paper is to shed an initial light on the issue of private equity consortia and how they fit in the contemporary European competition regime. Two essential competition concerns that have been brought up (1) private equity consortia entail a Monopsony setting. In an auction, the number of bidders are restricted, as a result that the bidding prices will drop below the competition price. (2) Private Equity consortia members share sensitive information in an auction in order to rig the bidding process (bid-rigging). Both concerns are examined against the background of the current European competition law framework. The first concern is examined in the light of the contemporary E.C. Merger Control regime. The second competition concern is subjected to article 81 §1 EC. The outcome of this paper is that there are, hitherto, no genuine competition impediments by private equity consortia. It appeared that the counterfactual used in a Monoposony setting did not apply in the case of private equity consortia. Similar to the US, in Europe private equity consortia operate in a plural market. The trend of private equity consortium is often compensated by other players that also participate (strategic players). Regarding the bid-rigging concerns, there was no actual empirical data available to determine the activities in Europe. We therefore assume that these practices have not (yet) occurred in the European situation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":285786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: International Law: Rule-Making & Rule Interpretation; International Courts (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: International Law: Rule-Making & Rule Interpretation; International Courts (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1137085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: International Law: Rule-Making & Rule Interpretation; International Courts (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1137085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在美国,私人股本的“俱乐部交易”引发了争议,人们担心私人股本公司联合起来操纵价格的潜在风险。令人惊讶的是,在欧洲,私人股本成功地躲过了臭名昭著的欧盟委员会(European Commission)的魔爪。本文的目的是初步阐明私募股权财团的问题,以及它们如何适应当代欧洲的竞争制度。已经提出的两个基本竞争问题:(1)私募股权财团涉及垄断设置。在拍卖中,竞标者的数量受到限制,因此投标价格会低于竞争价格。(2)私募股权财团成员在拍卖中共享敏感信息,以操纵投标过程(串通投标)。这两个问题都是在当前欧洲竞争法框架的背景下进行审查的。第一个问题是根据当代欧共体合并控制制度进行审查的。第二个竞争问题受欧盟第81条第1款的约束。本文的结论是,迄今为止,私人股本财团没有真正的竞争障碍。在垄断情况下使用的反事实似乎并不适用于私人股本财团。与美国类似,欧洲的私人股本财团在一个多元化的市场中运作。私募股权联合体的趋势往往会得到其他参与者(战略参与者)的补偿。关于操纵投标的问题,没有实际的经验数据来确定欧洲的活动。因此,我们假设这些做法(尚未)在欧洲的情况下发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Private Equity 'Club Deals' and European Competition Policy: A Primer
In the US, private equity 'club deals' have raised controversy as to potential risks of price fixing by consorting private equity firms. Surprisingly in Europe, private equity has managed to slip through the notorious far-reaching hand of the European Commission. This purpose of this paper is to shed an initial light on the issue of private equity consortia and how they fit in the contemporary European competition regime. Two essential competition concerns that have been brought up (1) private equity consortia entail a Monopsony setting. In an auction, the number of bidders are restricted, as a result that the bidding prices will drop below the competition price. (2) Private Equity consortia members share sensitive information in an auction in order to rig the bidding process (bid-rigging). Both concerns are examined against the background of the current European competition law framework. The first concern is examined in the light of the contemporary E.C. Merger Control regime. The second competition concern is subjected to article 81 §1 EC. The outcome of this paper is that there are, hitherto, no genuine competition impediments by private equity consortia. It appeared that the counterfactual used in a Monoposony setting did not apply in the case of private equity consortia. Similar to the US, in Europe private equity consortia operate in a plural market. The trend of private equity consortium is often compensated by other players that also participate (strategic players). Regarding the bid-rigging concerns, there was no actual empirical data available to determine the activities in Europe. We therefore assume that these practices have not (yet) occurred in the European situation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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