The following Competition practice note Produced in partnership with Jay Modrall of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
ARCHIVED–this archived practice note reviews the approach adopted by the European Commission to assessing innovation competition in merger investigations and reflects the position at the date of publication (22 June 2018). It is not maintained.
Under the EU Merger Regulation, the European Commission must assess the effect on competition of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures (concentrations) meeting the EU Merger Regulation’s jurisdictional thresholds. Where the Commission has serious doubts about whether a notified concentration will significantly impede effective competition, the Commission may open an in-depth (phase II) investigation and prohibit the concentration, unless the notifying party(ies) offer remedies that address the Commission’s concerns.
What constitutes a significant impediment to effective competition (SIEC) varies from case to case. While the Commission most often expresses concerns about anticipated price effects of notified transactions, recent decisions have focused attention on the Commission’s analysis of notified transactions’ potential to impede ‘innovation competition.’ The most complete explanation so far of how the Commission assesses the effect of notified concentrations’ on innovation competition is set out in the Commission’s March 2017 decision in Dow/DuPont (M.7932).
The Commission’s Dow/DuPont (M.7932) decision was very controversial. While the Commission insists it simply applied well-established principles to the facts of the case, critics have described the approach as an ‘innovative leap into the theoretical abyss’. In fact, while Commissioner Vestager highlighted the importance of innovation competition in
**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
On 29 August 2015, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the PRA Rulebook (Rulebook). The transition from the Handbook to the Rulebook was intended to benefit PRA-authorised firms, to access clearer and more concise rules. Alongside the Rulebook, supervisory statements and statements
What is QOCS?Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) was introduced on 1 April 2013 as part of the Jackson costs reforms following the removal of a claimant’s right to recover additional liabilities from the defendant, ie success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums. The relevant CPR
The right to notice means a right for the employee to remain in employment for the period of notice, not simply to be paid for it. An employer will therefore often include in the contract an express right to make a payment in lieu of notice ('PILON') as an alternative to giving notice, to ensure
This Practice Note considers the legal concept of mistake in contract law. It examines common mistake, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, mistake as to identity and mistake as to the document signed (non est factum). It also considers the impact of each of these types of mistake on the contract and
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.