Introduction
During merger and acquisition processes, the exchange of competitively sensitive information is often necessary to ensure the potential investment's profitability and operational feasibility post-transaction. However, these exchanges must remain within the confines of antitrust laws to avoid behaviors that could be classified as "gun-jumping." The term refers to the premature integration or coordination of business operations before regulatory clearance, which is prohibited under Turkish competition law. The Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA") recently issued a significant decision1 concerning the Param Holding and Kartek Holding transaction, shedding light on the scope of legitimate pre-merger conduct. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the TCA's ruling and its implications for businesses engaging in M&A activities.
Context of the Decision
The case revolves around the acquisition of Kartek Holding by Param Holding. The transaction was found to constitute a change in control as defined under Article 5 of M&A Communiqué. The TCA investigated whether the parties engaged in behaviors amounting to de facto control transfer before the merger is cleared with a Board decision.
The TCA examined 49 findings suggesting that the transaction's implementation occurred prior to the TCA's clearance. Among these, the authority scrutinized whether the acquirer's actions constituted control under the law, which defines control as the ability to exert decisive influence over another undertaking through rights, contracts, or factual conduct.
Key Findings of the TCA's Investigation
The TCA determined that certain actions by Param Holding exceeded permissible boundaries during the pre-merger phase. The key findings include:
- Coordination Beyond Necessity: The TCA highlighted that while certain system integration efforts between merging parties are expected for operational alignment, these efforts in the Param-Kartek case went beyond what is justifiable. The TCA noted that the parties' integration activities were not limited to mutual system understanding but extended to substantial operational alignment.
- Specifically, the TCA referred to correspondence and evidence suggesting that these integration efforts were expedited due to financial difficulties faced by Kartek. For example, challenges such as liquidity issues, participant count deficiencies, and regulatory approval requirements for cloud services prompted Param Holding to initiate integration processes prematurely. Such actions, while potentially addressing Kartek's immediate concerns, also facilitated a level of control inconsistent with the independent status the parties must maintain until clearance is obtained.
- Operational and Managerial Interference: Evidence showed that Param Holding played an active role in Kartek's decision-making processes:
-
- Personnel Management: Param Holding influenced Kartek's decisions on promotions, salary adjustments, and performance evaluations, with ultimate approval vested in Param.
- Customer Relationships: Param personnel participated in customer meetings, where they represented Kartek as part of Param's structure, implying that the acquisition was already completed.
- Marketing and Resource Allocation: Marketing strategies and budget preparations for 2024 were directed by Param, with actions such as planning bonus allocations and approving operational changes for Kartek.
- Shared Sales and Marketing Efforts: Joint marketing and sales strategies further blurred the boundaries between the two companies. Employees from both entities engaged in discussions about sales initiatives, and customers were informed about ongoing transactions as if they had already been completed.
- Resource Sharing and Financial Coordination: Param controlled Kartek's social media accounts and website, transferring these functions to its internal teams. Additionally, Kartek was treated as an operational subsidiary for financial purposes, including directives on banking relationships and promotional contracts.
- Influence Over Strategic Decisions: Param Holding's decision to withdraw from specific tenders directly influenced Kartek's participation, effectively undermining Kartek's ability to operate independently. Furthermore, system integration activities extended to shared resource management, including cloud service applications, which were justified as necessary for regulatory compliance.
Assessment of Gun-Jumping
The TCA concluded that the actions taken by Param Holding amounted to de facto control over Kartek's operations, constituting a violation of the Competition Act. These behaviors undermined Kartek's independent operation prior to the finalization of the merger and went beyond preparatory coordination, creating competitive risks and diminishing Kartek's operational autonomy. Consequently, the TCA imposed an administrative fine on the Yılmaz Family, as the acquiring party, amounting to 0.1% of their gross revenue generated in Turkey in 2022. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining operational independence during the pre-merger phase and the legal consequences of premature control transfer.
Conclusion
The TCA's decision in the Param-Kartek case provides essential guidance on what constitutes de facto control and when gun-jumping occurs, offering clarity on the limits of permissible conduct during the pre-merger phase. By identifying actions that signify a de facto change in control, such as active involvement in management decisions, shared marketing strategies, and operational integration, the ruling underscores the importance of preserving the independent status of merging parties until regulatory clearance is obtained.
At the same time, the findings revealed behaviors that could raise horizontal competition concerns under Article 4 of Act No. 4054. These included joint decision-making on labor market, collaborative sales and marketing efforts, and Param's management of Kartek's procurement processes. While the TCA refrained from addressing these issues in this decision, the potential for scrutiny in future cases remains. This emphasizes the need for parties to avoid not only gun-jumping risks but also actions that could restrict competition on a horizontal level.
The ruling ultimately serves as a roadmap for navigating the delicate balance between due diligence, operational planning, and compliance with competition law during the pre-merger phase. Companies must implement strict safeguards to ensure that pre-closing activities do not result in de facto control or anti-competitive coordination.
Footnote
1. The TCA's decision dated 04.04.2024 and numbered 24-16/390-148.
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.