In a practical guide produced in partnership with LexisNexis, one of the leading online providers of legal information on merger control and foreign direct investment ("FDI") control regimes across the world and their conditions of application, partners Nathalie Jalabert-Doury and Jean-Maxime Blutel discuss key issues on merger control in French Polynesia that may be relevant to businesses and their advisors, including the following:

  1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the French Polynesia merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other 'hot' merger control issues in French Polynesia?
  2. Under French Polynesia merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of 'decisive influence'? If not, how does it differ and what is the position in relation to 'minority shareholdings'?
  3. Are joint ventures caught by the French Polynesian merger control provisions (including non-structural, cooperative joint ventures)?
  4. What are the merger control thresholds and would a purely foreign-to-foreign transaction be caught (commenting on any 'effects' doctrine/policy if relevant)?
  5. Are there any specific issues parties should be aware of when compiling and calculating the relevant turnover for applying the jurisdictional thresholds?
  6. Where the jurisdictional thresholds are met, is notification mandatory and must closing be suspended pending clearance?
  7. Is there any discretion to review transactions that fall below the notification thresholds?
  8. Is it possible to close the deal globally prior to local clearance?
  9. Is there a deadline for filing a notifiable transaction and what is the timetable thereafter for review by the competition authority?
  10. Who is responsible for filing a notifiable transaction (noting also whether there is a specific form/document used and an applicable filing fee)?
  11. Please confirm/comment on the penalties for failing to notify or suspend transactions pending clearance and the competition authority's record/stance in terms of pursuing parties for failing to notify relevant transactions (commenting, if relevant, on any statute of limitations regarding sanctions for infringements of the applicable law).
  12. Are there any other 'stakeholders' other than the competition authority (for example, any 'sector regulators' who might have concurrent powers)?

To read this complete article visit LexisNexis (subscription required).

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2021. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.