International Comparative Guides | 01 December 2016

Although there are over 75 countries in the world with merger control regimes that, for the most part, apply to foreign-to-foreign transactions, the US and EU remain the key jurisdictions when assessing global mergers.  This is the case once a transaction is announced and notified, but maybe even more so when legal teams of companies are assessing the chances of successfully implementing a planned transaction.

The reason is that other competition authorities look towards Brussels and Washington.  Unless there are local specifications, it is unlikely that a country would stop a global deal if both the US and EU have approved it.  When assessing the risk of a transaction, the first question will inevitably be: can we get it through in the US and the EU?  In the not too distant future that question may also include China but, for the most part, the Chinese review remains more a question of effects on the deal timetable, not whether the deal is viable.  While the US and EU reviews are very similar, there are a number of key differences that we have sought to highlight below. [Continue Reading]

International Comparative Guides | 01 December 2016

All in-house counsel will be aware of the merger control rules that grant competition authorities the power to monitor, assess and even modify or prohibit M&A activity.  There are very few jurisdictions around the world that do not enforce some form of merger control and, with the notable exception of Luxembourg, all 28 EU Member States can require the notification of mergers.  This requirement can be triggered by sales into a Member State, irrespective of where a business is registered or based.  As such, being familiar with the merger control rules is important not only for companies that are located in the EU, but for all companies that conduct business in the region. [Continue Reading]