ALERTS: MERGERS - GUN-JUMPING - NEGATIVE DEFINITION

Gun-jumping: The Advocate General Nils Wahl invites the European Court of Justice to use a negative definition of the obligation of suspension of merger, by defining what is not Gun jumping, such as some preparatory measures which could not be qualified of anticipated realization of a merger(EY / KPMG)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Gun jumping or not Gun jumping? That is the question referred in Case C-633/16 (Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet): Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø-og Handelsretten (Maritime and Commercial Court, Denmark). Advocate General Nils Wahl delivered his Opinion on 18 January 2018. in this case. It calls on the Court of Justice to adopt a restrictive interpretation of Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation introducing an obligation to suspend the concentration until it is authorised. It also suggests that, in order to clearly delimit this standstill obligation, the Court of Justice should use a negative definition, i.e. define what falls outside

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Gun-jumping: The Advocate General Nils Wahl invites the European Court of Justice to use a negative definition of the obligation of suspension of merger, by defining what is not Gun jumping, such as some preparatory measures which could not be qualified of anticipated realization of a merger(EY / KPMG), 18 January 2018, Concurrences N° 2-2018, Art. N° 85986, www.concurrences.com

Visites 402

All reviews