Multi-jurisdictional mergers - local guides

When a business is acquired, when firms merge, or when a joint venture is established, it is necessary to consider whether the transaction will be subject to merger control rules in any country in which a party to the transaction is active.

There are merger control regimes in over 150 jurisdictions throughout the world, the vast majority of which require mandatory notifications to be filed if the specified thresholds are met. Penalties can be, and are, imposed on companies that fail to notify transactions and deals can be suspended until regulators have cleared them.

In many of those jurisdictions, a transaction cannot be completed until the relevant authority has issued a clearance decision. This requires advisors to factor in time delay where merger notifications are required and the impact that uncertainty may have on the deal.

If the transaction does fall within merger control rules, a notification to the relevant competition authorities may be required. This may be necessary even if there are no obvious

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Competition News

UK Competition law—daily round-up (20/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the CMA’s decision that the Synopsys/Ansys merger meets the test for reference to phase 2.

High Court confirms broad government discretion in UK national security reviews

Competition analysis: In this judgment, the High Court issued its first ever ruling on a challenge to an unwinding order imposed by the UK government under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA 2021). In a clear victory for the government, the court confirmed the broad discretion of the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate remedy for resolving national security concerns arising from a problematic transaction, up to and including forced divestment of the acquirer’s shareholding in a qualifying entity, as well confirming that the overall process followed by the Government in such cases is fair and proportionate. The judgment is also notable for the insights that it provides into the process followed by Government officials and ministers for in-depth reviews under the NSIA 2021, with the level of detail going well beyond what has been disclosed in the Government’s own guidance to date. Written by Becket McGrath, partner at Euclid Law Ltd.

Competition weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the latest NSI Act 2021 developments, (2) the DCMS’ decision to extend its deadline for responses to its consultation on updating the media mergers regime, and (3) the CMA grants permission for collective action against Google over alleged market abuse. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the General Court’s judgment dismissing further actions against Commission’s decision finding that a scheme designed to promote regional development in Maderia was unlawful State aid.

UK Competition law—daily round-up (19/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) (1) the CMA publishes an updated version of its Guidance on investigation procedures under the CA 1998 cases following changes brought by the DMCCA, (2) the CMA publishes final guidance on the digital markets competition regime, as well a separate guidance on the merger reporting requirements for SMS firms, (3) the CMA publishes an updated statement of policy concerning its approach to imposing administrative penalties for failure to comply with requirements imposed under its investigatory and remedies powers, (4) the CMA publishes updated guidance on its transparency and disclosure statement, including new overseas investigative assistance, (5) the CMA publishes guidance on its information gathering powers relating to road fuel monitoring, (6) the CMA publishes a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the CMA, the Bank of England and the PRA regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (7) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and Ofcom regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (8) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and ICO regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (9) the CMA publishes a report concerning its 10-year review of concurrency arrangements, and (10) the CAT’s judgment dismissing a claim regarding excessive pricing brought against BT in the first opt-out competition collective action to go to trial.