The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Both the EU and the US impose on parties to transactions notification requirements when certain thresholds are met. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that competition authorities have the opportunity to review transactions that could substantially harm competition before they are closed.
Gun jumping relates to unlawful pre-merger co-ordination or integration between the parties to a transaction. More precisely, it is a term used to describe two types of scenarios:
transactions that are closed without any notification despite thresholds having been triggered (so-called ‘failure to notify’ cases), and
substantive gun jumping (ie integration measures being taken prior to clearance—frequently while review by competition authorities is pending)
For a practical checklist of do’s and don’ts in relation to gun jumping, see Gun-jumping ’Do’s and don’ts’—checklist.
Failure to notify cases refer to cases where parties fail entirely to notify the competition authorities of a transaction triggering merger thresholds, thus violating the applicable obligation to notify a transaction prior to its implementation under Article 4(1) of the EU Merger Regulation and under section 7A of the Clayton Act, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (HSR Act). Of course, in cases where the EUMR is not applicable, transactions may nevertheless be subject to pre-merger notification requirements at the Member State level.
Failure-to-notify cases frequently occur in less clear-cut scenarios such as staggered acquisitions of
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Broadly, the doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (which includes tenants and mortgagees) in good faith for money or money’s worth to rely solely on the legal title. In the case of registered land, this means the entries entered on the register of title, as it records ownership of the legal
The principles of the notarial act are that it is:•an act of the notary and not of the parties named in the document•a record of a fact, event or transaction•in the form of a document, notwithstanding the form of the underlying document, fact, event or transactionThe purpose of the notarial act is
This Practice Note examines:•why negative pledge clauses are used in commercial transactions •the consequences of breaching negative pledge provisions•how negative pledges are viewed in the context of security and quasi-security, and•key considerations when drafting a negative pledge clauseWhere
Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) is a specific corporation tax regime that applies exclusively to the gains and losses of intangible fixed assets. Note, however, that certain intangible fixed assets are excluded from the regime, see Practice Note: Excluded intangible fixed
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.