Pre-Closing Competition Law Issues: How To Overcome The Gun Jumping Mania and Other Competition Law Risks
| Autor | Tânia Luísa Faria & Margot Lopes Martins |
| Cargo | Advogadas do Departamento de Mercantil da Uría Menéndez Proença de Carvalho (Lisboa) |
| Páginas | 186-203 |
186
Foro de Actualidad
Unión Europea
PRE-CLOSING COMPETITION
LAW ISSUES: HOW TO
OVERCOME THE GUN
JUMPING MANIA AND OTHER
COMPETITION LAW RISKS
Tânia Luísa Faria & Margot Lopes Martins
Advogadas do Departamento de Mercantil da Uría Menéndez
Proença de Carvalho (Lisboa)
Pre-Closing Competition Law Issues: How To Overcome The Gun Jumping Mania and Other Compe-
tition Law Risks
The pre-closing phase in a concentration between independent undertakings is a critical and risky phase in
terms of competition law, not only because it can trigger the relevant merger control thresholds, in one or
several jurisdictions, but also because it can provide the parties, in certain circumstances, with a privileged
platform for coordination during a period in which the implementation of the concentration is still uncertain.
Within this context, it is of the utmost importance for the parties to adequately consider the risks associated
with the pre-closing scenario, especially in view of the increasingly relevant decision practice and case law, at
the EU and national level, which resulted in very significant fines and have highlighted the existence of unclear
scenarios, which must be carefully assessed.
KEY WOR DS:
CONCEN TRATION OF UNDERTAKI NGS; MERGER C ONTROL; MERGER REGULAT ION, PORTUG UESE COMPET ITION AC T; PRE-CLOSIN G PERIOD;
GUN JUMPI NG; MANDATO RY NOTIFIC ATION; STAN DSTIL L OBLIGATI ON; RESTR ICTIV E PRACTIC ES; COMP ETITI ON LAW RISKS ; M&A BEST
PRACTIC ES.
187
Foro de Actualidad
Pré-closing em Sede de Operações de Concentração: Como Ultrapassar a Gun Jumping Mania e Ou-
tros Riscos de Direito da Concorrência
A fase anterior ao closing numa concentração entre empresas independentes é uma fase crítica e com riscos
acrescidos em termos de direito da concorrência, não só porque a existência de uma concentração pode de-
sencadear o preenchimento de limiares de controlo de concentrações, numa ou mais jurisdições, mas também
porque pode proporcionar às partes, em determinadas circunstâncias, uma plataforma privilegiada de coorde-
nação, durante um período em que a realização da concentração é ainda incerta. Neste contexto, é da maior
importância que as partes considerem adequadamente os riscos associados ao cenário anterior ao encerra-
mento, especialmente tendo em conta a prática decisória e a jurisprudência cada vez mais relevante a nível
da UE e a nível nacional, que resultam em coimas muito significativas e aumentaram a existência de cenários
pouco claros, que devem ser cuidadosamente avaliados.
PALAVRA S CHAVE :
CONCEN TRAÇÃO DE EMPRES AS; CONTRO LO DE CONCE NTRAÇÕ ES; REGULA MENTO DE CONCENT RAÇÕE S; LEI DA CONCOR RÊNCI A; PERÍODO
ANTES D A IM PLEME NTAÇÃO (PERÍOD O PR É-CLOSIN G); GUN JUM PING; NOTIFIC AÇÃO OBRIGATÓRI A; O BRIGAÇÃO D E SU SPENS ÃO; PRÁTICAS
RESTRI TIVAS; RI SCOS J US-CONCO RRENC IAIS; BOAS PRÁT ICAS E M SEDE DE FU SÕES E AQUISIÇÕE S.
FECHA DE RECEPCIÓN: 10-5-2020
FECHA DE ACEPTACIÓN: 30-5-2020
Faria, Tânia Luísa; Lopes Martins, Margot (2020). Pre-Closing Competition Law Issues: How To Overcome The Gun Jumping
Mania and Other Competition Law Risks. Actualidad Jurídica Uría Menéndez, 54, pp. 186-203 (ISSN: 1578-956X).
1. Introduction
In June 2009, the European Commission (“EC”) imposed a €20 million fine on Electrabel1 for
allegedly implementing a deal without the EC’s necessary clearance under the European Union
(“EU”) merger control framework, a surprising decision as, at the time, the highest fine imposed
by the EC for gun jumping was €174,0002. But the gun jumping mania was only picking up speed.
In 2014, a fine of €20 million was imposed on Marine Harvest for a very similar violation3, in April
2018, the EC fined telecom company, Altice, €124.5 million, for an alleged gun jumping infringe-
ment4, and in June 2019, it fined Canon €28 million for allegedly using a “warehousing” two-step
transaction structure when acquiring Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (“TMSC”)5.
National authorities are also into the gun jumping mania. In November 2016, the French competi-
tion authority fined Altice €80 million for the alleged premature implementation of its acquisition
of SFR and Virgin Mobile6. In 2018, the German Bundeskartellamt imposed a €4.5 million fine
on Mars for partially implementing a transaction7. On September 2019, the UK Competition and
Markets Authority (“CMA”) imposed a record fine of £250,000 on PayPal in the context of its
acquisition of iZettle8. Also, gun jumping issues are becoming a priority for more recently incorpo-
rated competition enforcers. For instance, in a rather complex case, Engie, Gazprom, OMV, Shell,
Uniper and Wintershall are currently under investigation in Poland for conducts related to the set-
ting up of the Nord Stream Project that may include the non-notification of financing agreements
potentially amounting to a concentration, allegedly aiming to circumvent the obstacles raised by
the Polish competition authority to the creation of a joint venture, facing a potential record fine9.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba