In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by a panel from Cleary
On November 1, 2025, the Commission issued a policy brief[1] in which it rejected calls to extend the legal professional privilege to in-house counsel communication. The Commission examined the question after stakeholders called for such an extension as part of the revision process of the regulation governing antitrust investigation, Regulation 1/2003.[2]
On 16 October 2025, the CMA launched a public consultation on its draft revised Merger Remedies Guidance (the Draft Guidance).[1] The revision reflects the Government’s call for a more business-friendly, pro-growth approach to merger control.[2]
In May 2025, the Commission launched a public consultation on possible reforms to its merger guidelines, covering seven core topics that underpin how the Commission assesses the competitive impact of mergers.[1] On October 29, the Commission summarized the main trends of the 243 responses[2] it received.[3] The highlights are as follows:
In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Hiroo Iwanari, Secretary-General of
As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic Paper D – on Sustainability and Clean Technologies.
In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Teresa Ribera, the European Commission’s Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition. Their conversation, held in front of a live audience in New York at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute’s 52nd Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, covers an array of topics, including the objectives of antitrust, sustainability, EU merger control, the Draghi Report, digital regulation, international cooperation, and much more.
On Friday, the Court in Texas v. Blackrock issued an opinion largely denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allows a coalition of States to proceed with claims that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard conspired to violate the antitrust laws by pressuring publicly traded coal companies to reduce output in connection with the investment firms’ ESG commitments. The Court found that the States plausibly alleged that defendants coordinated with one another, relying on allegations that they joined climate initiatives, made parallel public commitments, engaged with management of the public coal companies, and aligned proxy voting on disclosure issues. It is worth noting that, while the court viewed BlackRock’s, State Street’s, and Vanguard’s participation in Climate Action 100+ and NZAM as increasing the plausibility of the claim in favor of denying the motion to dismiss, the Court clarified that it was not opining that the parties conspired at Climate Action 100+ or NZAM.