Tag: merger control
-
Investment screening in the Netherlands: Where do we stand? Key takeaways from the BTI annual report 2025
The Dutch Investment Screening Bureau (BTI) published its third annual report in April 2026, covering the year 2025. The report reflects a screening regime that is growing in both caseload and enforcement activity. In this blog, we highlight the key takeaways: the 2025 statistics, the first prohibition decision under the Vifo Act that became a conditional approval on appeal, the first gun-jumping fine, and the expanding scope…
-
All change for the UK merger regime – Except the standard of review?
Traditionally, the UK has had a two-stage decision making process for merger cases. First, there were two separate organisations, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Competition Commission (CC). The OFT would carry out the first phase review of a merger (“Phase 1”) and, if there were reasonable prospects that the merger would result…
-
UK Competition and Market Authority’s consultation on merger remedies confirms greater flexibility
The CMA’s consultation on its revised merger remedies guidance, published on 16 October 2025, confirms a more flexible approach to remedies including in Phase 1 – a trend already seen in recent CMA decisions.
-
Competition law in sports: it’s time to talk about merger control
When the US hosted the FIFA World Cup in 1994, it was said to have spent $500 million on the tournament. Fast forward to 2022, Qatar reportedly spent a whopping $220 billion. Sport is now “big business” . . . and being big business means competition law scrutiny. There are three main fields of competition…
-
The ACM’s mission to plug the “small acquisitions gap”
In line with recent developments in other countries, the ACM’s chairman Martijn Snoep has expressed a desire for new competences to review relatively small mergers (in size) that fall below the notification thresholds of the Dutch Competition Act (DCA).[1] In the ACM’s view, mergers that fall below these thresholds can nonetheless cause competition problems. In…
-
Draconian but unavoidable? Illumina’s quest for GRAIL ends in a record fine
Sprint races can be decided by hundredths of a second. But the sprinter who pushes off before the starting gun sounds “jumps the gun” and faces harsh punishment. In our never-ending attempts to make competition law sound cool, practitioners refer to the completion of a deal before mandatory clearance is obtained as “gun jumping”, even…
-
Bank bailouts – The antitrust approach
Over the weekend, it became clear that UBS agreed to buy Credit Suisse after a hectic weekend of negotiations brokered by Swiss regulator FINMA to safeguard Switzerland’s banking system and attempt to prevent a crisis spreading across global markets. The news followed the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the rescue of First Republic Bank…
-
Three/O2 – EU merger control test clarified? (And lions in Regent’s Park)
“Formalistic”, “reductionist”, “selective and unbalanced or even deficient”. Advocate General Juliane Kokott did not mince her words in last week’s Opinion on the General Court’s judgment in CK Telecoms, in which she asks the Court of Justice to annul the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court. An AG Opinion is an…
-
Illumina/Grail: An unholy war continues
The European Commission has blocked a merger that did not meet any European jurisdictional thresholds for the first time. In a case that has seen the Commission pushing at the boundaries of its remit, it has prohibited Illumina’s $8 billion acquisition of GRAIL. Article 22 EUMR The Illumina/GRAIL merger did not meet the thresholds under…
-
Legitimately expected: Commission may review Illumina/GRAIL deal
Today the General Court handed down its hotly anticipated judgment in the Illumina/GRAIL merger, deciding that the European Commission has jurisdiction to review the merger. This judgment is hugely consequential, as it confirms that EU Member States have the power to refer mergers to the Commission even when those mergers do not meet the national…