操之过急:从最近欧盟案例中吸取的教训

Q4 Social Sciences
Merit Olthoff, Corinne Ruechardt
{"title":"操之过急:从最近欧盟案例中吸取的教训","authors":"Merit Olthoff, Corinne Ruechardt","doi":"10.4337/CLJ.2018.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In most jurisdictions, the parties to a merger are not allowed to implement the transaction prior to receiving clearance from the relevant competition authority. Competition authorities have become increasingly vigilant about enforcing this standstill obligation. Recent high profile cases involving record fines provide some insight into which activities may be regarded as impermissible ‘gun jumping’ and which measures are permitted in preparing to implement a merger. This article analyses the European Commission's decision in Altice and the Court of Justice's judgment in Ernst & Young and draws conclusions, in particular, on the implications for information exchange between merging parties and the identification of ‘ordinary business’, which must remain unaffected until closing of a prospective concentration.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jumping the gun: lessons learnt from recent EU cases\",\"authors\":\"Merit Olthoff, Corinne Ruechardt\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/CLJ.2018.02.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In most jurisdictions, the parties to a merger are not allowed to implement the transaction prior to receiving clearance from the relevant competition authority. Competition authorities have become increasingly vigilant about enforcing this standstill obligation. Recent high profile cases involving record fines provide some insight into which activities may be regarded as impermissible ‘gun jumping’ and which measures are permitted in preparing to implement a merger. This article analyses the European Commission's decision in Altice and the Court of Justice's judgment in Ernst & Young and draws conclusions, in particular, on the implications for information exchange between merging parties and the identification of ‘ordinary business’, which must remain unaffected until closing of a prospective concentration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"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.2018.02.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/CLJ.2018.02.04","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

摘要

在大多数司法管辖区,合并各方在获得相关竞争主管部门的批准之前,不得实施交易。竞争主管部门对执行这一暂停义务越来越警惕。最近涉及创纪录罚款的高调案件让我们了解了哪些活动可能被视为不允许的“跳枪”,以及在准备实施合并时允许采取哪些措施。本文分析了欧盟委员会在Altice案中的裁决和法院在Ernst&Young案中的判决,并得出了结论,特别是对合并各方之间的信息交换和“普通企业”的识别的影响,在预期集中结束之前,“普通业务”必须不受影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jumping the gun: lessons learnt from recent EU cases
In most jurisdictions, the parties to a merger are not allowed to implement the transaction prior to receiving clearance from the relevant competition authority. Competition authorities have become increasingly vigilant about enforcing this standstill obligation. Recent high profile cases involving record fines provide some insight into which activities may be regarded as impermissible ‘gun jumping’ and which measures are permitted in preparing to implement a merger. This article analyses the European Commission's decision in Altice and the Court of Justice's judgment in Ernst & Young and draws conclusions, in particular, on the implications for information exchange between merging parties and the identification of ‘ordinary business’, which must remain unaffected until closing of a prospective concentration.
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
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