UK: Brexit's Implication For Merger Control

This is an article from IFLR "Brexit's Implication for Merger Control."

The EU's one-stop shop principle for concentrations faces an uncertain future following for the UK's Brexit decision. Several scenarios could play out

Ever since the UK's vote to leave the European Union in the referendum of June 23 2016, newspapers and bulletins in the UK and internationally have been filled with articles analysing the potential impact of Brexit.

Among the myriad of questions that arise as a result of the outcome of the UK referendum is what the implications will be for merger control. In particular, what will the impact be for:

  • the one-stop-shop principle that lies at the heart of EU merger control?
  • the test that will be used to assess transactions going forward - in particular, will post-Brexit UK seek to apply a stronger industrial policy-based approach to mergers and acquisitions than is currently the case? and
  • the institutions that will be called upon to review mergers that fall within their jurisdiction?

The end of the one-stop-shop?

One of the core principles of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) is that the European Commission is exclusively competent to investigate concentrations (i.e. mergers, acquisitions and certain types of joint ventures) that exceed either of the two turnover thresholds set out in articles 1(2) and 1(3) EUMR and therefore have a "Community dimension". This "one-stop-shop" principle is highly valued by the business community as it reduces the regulatory burden. This has become all the more important given the proliferation of national merger control regimes over the last decade. The question therefore arises whether transactions involving both the UK and the EU would, post-Brexit, lose this significant benefit.

The answer to this question, as with most Brexit-related questions, depends on what form the post-Brexit UK/EU relationship will take. The various possible options and permutations that have been mooted broadly fall in one of the following three categories:

  • The UK leaves the EU but adopts a Norwegian style solution by becoming member of the European Economic Area (EEA) and thus retains full access to the single market.
  • The UK and the EU adopt a solution which allows the UK some, but not full, access to the single market (this could entail the adoption of a Swiss type arrangement, or a UK specific deal).
  • The UK withdraws from the single market and falls back on World Trade Organization principles.

"If the UK were not to become a member of the EEA, the one-stop-principle would likely cease to apply, irrespective of whether the UK were to seek a degree of access to the single market, or withdrew fully from it"

If the UK becomes an EEA member, the changes to merger control as a result of Brexit would be relatively limited. In accordance with article 57(2) of the EEA Treaty, the Commission has exclusive competence to assess, in certain circumstances in cooperation with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority, the impact within the EEA of a transaction that meets the EUMR thresholds and therefore has a Community dimension. However, UK turnover would no longer be taken into account to calculate whether the thresholds set out in EUMR are met. The following scenarios can therefore be distinguished. First, the turnover generated by the relevant parties worldwide and in the remaining 27 EU member states is sufficient to meet the EUMR thresholds. In such a situation, the current regime where the Commission has exclusive competence to investigate the deal would continue to apply and the Commission's investigation would cover the effects of the proposed transaction in the EEA, including the UK. Secondly, where the proposed transaction does not meet the EU thresholds, it would fall within the jurisdiction of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) if the jurisdictional criteria of UK merger control are met, unless the transaction has an EFTA (but not EU) dimension as defined in article 57 and annex XIV to the EEA Treaty. In that case, the EFTA Surveillance Authority would be competent to review the transaction. To date, there have been no transactions with an EFTA (but not EU) dimension, but accession of the UK to the EEA would, at least in theory, increase the chances of this happening.

If the UK were not to become a member of the EEA, the one-stop-principle would most likely cease to apply. This is irrespective of whether the UK were to seek a degree of (but not full) access to the single market, or withdrew fully from it. In this scenario, a significant number of transactions would likely fall within the jurisdiction of an additional competition authority, the CMA. However, not all transactions falling within the scope of UK merger control rules would lead to an extra investigation; given that the UK regime is voluntary parties would be able to opt not to notify their transaction, although the CMA has the power to open an ex officio investigation. If the parties would decide to notify, a fee would be payable. This is in contrast with the EU system where no filing fee applies.

Where a transaction would be reviewed simultaneously by the CMA and the Commission, the two authorities would almost certainly cooperate closely to avoid significant divergence in the assessment of the transaction or possible remedies, as the Commission currently does with a number of other authorities across the globe such as the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defence (known as CADE), and others. However, while such cooperation would certainly be both helpful and desirable, it would not replace the advantages of the current one-stop-shop regime.

Towards a greater industrial policy?

In accordance with article 2 of the EUMR, the substantive investigation of a proposed transaction focusses on whether or not it would result in a "significant impediment of effective competition" (commonly referred to as the SIEC test). The test is therefore narrow in scope and does not include wider policy considerations, such as, for example, employment, environment or privacy protection. Article 21(4) EUMR allows member states to adopt measures that are required to safeguard national security, media plurality or prudential rules. However, the application of article 21(4) is strict and the Commission has in the past taken action against what it considered to be unjustified member state intervention. For example, when the Portuguese government sought to prevent Secil and Holderbank from acquiring the Portuguese cement company Cimpor on the grounds that it would be against Portuguese economic policy, the Commission required the Portuguese government to withdraw its objection as none of the three grounds identified in article 21(4) EUMR applied.

The Commission has also consistently made it clear in statements and speeches that it intends to remain vigilant to ensure that the mechanism of article 21(4) EUMR is not used as a pretext to impose national protectionist measures.

"The UK has been a strong advocate of an effects based M&A assessment while certain other continental EU jurisdictions have tended to be more structuralist in their approach"

In her speech of July 11 2016, when it was confirmed she had won the conservative party leadership race and would therefore replace David Cameron as UK prime minister, Theresa May stated that: "[B]ecause as we saw when Cadbury's – that great Birmingham company – was bought by Kraft, or when AstraZeneca was almost sold to Pfizer, transient shareholders – who are mostly companies investing other people's money – are not the only people with an interest when firms are sold or close. Workers have a stake, local communities have a stake, and often the whole country has a stake. It is hard to think of an industry of greater strategic importance to Britain than its pharmaceutical industry, and AstraZeneca is one of the jewels in its crown. Yet two years ago the Government almost allowed AstraZeneca to be sold to Pfizer, the US company with a track record of asset stripping and whose self-confessed attraction to the deal was to avoid tax. A proper industrial strategy wouldn't automatically stop the sale of British firms to foreign ones, but it should be capable of stepping in to defend a sector that is as important as pharmaceuticals is to Britain."

Can it therefore be expected that post Brexit, the UK will adopt a more industrial policy focussed approach to possible transactions? A number of politicians have certainly called for this in the past. Cadbury's takeover by Kraft prompted then UK Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats Vince Cable to call for the re-introduction of a wider public interest test. In 2014, in his then role as business secretary, Cable was reported in the press as seeking to strengthen the takeover rules which he had concluded were inadequate in the light of Pfizer's bid for Astra Zeneca. Chucka Umunna, then Labour shadow business secretary agreed and offered cross-party support for an initiative to change the law.

The scope for a more industrial policy based approach will depend on the form the UK-EU arrangement takes post-Brexit. If the UK becomes an EEA member, the EUMR rules will continue to apply to most transactions that currently fall within its scope and any possible change in policy would apply only to transactions that are caught by UK merger control rules. There would be greater scope for a wider public interest based approach to mergers and acquisitions if the UK and EU come to a looser Brexit arrangement.

However, even if that were the case, and the UK were to allow for increased public interest based intervention, it is likely that in practice such intervention would remain limited. Indeed, it is noteworthy in this context that the UK Enterprise Act replaced the public interest test that was provided for in the Fair Trading Act with a more narrowly focussed substantial lessening of competition test. Intervention on public interest grounds is possible, but only where concerns arise relating to national security, plurality of the media or stability of the UK financial system. The UK therefore independently adopted a position that is very similar to that of the EUMR. Moreover, on July 18 2016, the Japanese company Softbank acquired the Cambridge-based technology company ARM without any concerns being raised by the UK government. On the contrary, the transaction was hailed as being "in the national interest". While Softbank's chairman and CEO was reported as having made a phone call to the UK's new prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer, offering a series of legally binding assurances to maintain ARM's headquarters, double its UK-based staff over the next five years and increase its overseas headcount, the enforceability in practice of such assurances is uncertain. It therefore remains to be seen how aggressive the UK will actually be in pursuing a "proper industrial strategy".

Institutional impact of Brexit

Absent membership of the EEA, Brexit is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the number of cases reviewed by the CMA. However, concerns have been raised as to whether the CMA would be able to cope with such an increase of cases as it merger team is currently already fairly stretched. A considerable increase in the volume of cases may even eventually lead to a revision of the UK's jurisdictional criteria as a way to limit the number of transactions capable of review.

But the CMA is not the only institution potentially impacted by Brexit. If the UK were to become an EEA member, given the size of the UK market, there may in the future be a number of cases that have an EFTA (but not EU) dimension. As the EFTA Surveillance Authority is competent to review such transactions, an expansion of their merger team may be required.

Finally, the UK has been a strong advocate of an effects based assessment of mergers and acquisitions, while certain other continental European jurisdictions have tended to be more structuralist in their approach. There is therefore at least a potential risk that post-Brexit the Commission's assessment may over time shift towards such a more formal approach.

As is clear from the issues discussed above, while it is easy to raise the question as to what the impact of Brexit on merger control is likely to be, it is very difficult to predict with any degree of certainty what the likely outcome will be. At one end of the spectrum, the impact on merger control may be limited if the UK opts to become a member of the EEA. However, if no such solution is adopted, the impact will be more pronounced. The degree to which merger control will change in practice will, however, only become clearer when the likely contours of the post Brexit UK/EU framework become more defined.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions