Mergers & Acquisitions

On 12 February 2019, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of £200,000 on Electro Rent for gun-jumping.[1] This is the third occasion on which the CMA has penalised a company for breaching “standstill” or “hold-separate” obligations under the UK merger rules, and comes only one day after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the CMA’s first gun-jumping fine (imposed on Electro Rent in June 2018 for a separate infringement).[2] The CMA has shown increased readiness to penalise companies for breaching procedural rules, in particular in relation to merger proceedings, consistent with recent action by the European Commission (EC) and national agencies in the EU. The CAT’s judgment strongly endorses the CMA’s approach: “[i]t is a matter of public importance that the merger control process, and the duties it creates, are strictly and conscientiously, observed.[3]

On February 6, 2019—the same day the Siemens/Alstom decision was adopted—and again following a Phase II investigation, the Commission prohibited German rolled copper products manufacturer Wieland’s proposed acquisition of Aurubis’s rival business and of its 50% stake in the parties’ pre-rolled strip manufacturing joint-venture Schwermetall.[1]

On February 6, 2019, the Commission[1] prohibited the then-proposed combination of Siemens AG’s (“Siemens”) mobility business and Alstom S.A. (“Alstom”) which put an end to the parties’ ambition of creating a European Champion in the rail industry.[2] The Financial Times called this Phase 2 investigation “one of the most important test cases for the commission since it assumed powers to vet EU mergers in 1989.”[3]

On March 6, 2020, the Commission approved Telecom Italia and Vodafone’s acquisition of joint control over INWIT, which will combine the companies’ 22,000 telecommunication towers in Italy.[1] The approval was obtained during Phase I and is conditioned on third-party access to the infrastructure.

On January 18, the CAT quashed the procedural timetable set by the CMA in the Phase 2 review of the Sainsbury’s/Asda merger. The CMA had given the parties a little over two weeks to respond to over 400 pages of working papers and scheduled the Main Party Hearings during the same period. The CAT found the deadlines were unreasonable and unfair given the volume and complexity of the papers, the CMA’s failure to engage in a longer pre-notification period despite the parties’ requests, and the overlap of the deadlines for the main hearing and response to the working papers. The CAT did not specify new deadlines, which were left to the CMA’s discretion, having regard to the overall statutory review period.