|
|
|
|
Merger Remedies in an Era of EC Merger Control - Chapter 19 - International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2004
Pages:
ISBN:
Published On:
Updated On:
7061
DwnLdItem
PDF Chapter
Have a question? Email us about this product!
Available Format
|
Additional Information |
International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2004 - Hardcover International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2004 - PDF ___________________________________________________________________________________ Preview Page Chapter 19
MERGER REMEDIES IN
A NEW ERA OF EC MERGER CONTROL
Michael J. Reynolds and Richard Burnley†
I. INTRODUCTION
On 1st May, 2004 a new EC Merger Regulation entered into force.1
At the same time, the related internal reorganisation took place within the
Directorate General for Competition (“DGCOMP”) of the European
Commission (the “Commission”), including the disbanding of the Merger
Task Force into various sectoral units. In the light of these changes, that
mark something of a watershed in the system of EC merger control, this
seems to be an appropriate time to review the Commission’s assessment of
merger remedies under the old regime, and to consider how that practice
may develop in the future.
The Commission’s approach to remedies in merger cases reflects the
fact that the EC merger regime is young and continuously evolving. The
Commission Notice on Remedies (“Remedies Notice”), adopted in
December 2000, was aimed at “codifying” the first 10 years of the
Commission’s experience in dealing with remedies in merger cases.2
Neither binding nor exhaustive, it aimed to provide clearer guidelines for
merging parties in suggesting appropriate commitments. Shortly after the
publication of the Remedies Notice, a new Enforcement Unit was
established in DGCOMAT The Enforcement Unit was made up of
members of the Merger Task Force and, through regular meetings and
contact with case teams, was dedicated to enhancing certainty and
consistency in the assessment of merger remedies. Two years later, the
Commission published Best Practice Guidelines for divestment remedies,
together with standard models for divestiture commitments (the “Model
Divestiture Commitments”) and the engagement of trustees (the “Model
Trustee Mandate”) (together, the “Model Texts”).
The internal changes to DGCOMP’s structure, which were
introduced on 1st May, 2004 following the Commission’s defeats before
About the Editor:
Barry Hawk, Director, Fordham Corporate Law Institute; Professor of Law, Fordham University and Partner, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (New York and Brussels)
|
|
|
|
|
|
