© Copyright Acquisition International 2025 - All Rights Reserved.

Article Image - Avoiding the merger control blues
Posted 19th June 2018

Avoiding the merger control blues

Effective handling of antitrust issues can help businesses bolster their negotiating position—whichever side of the deal they're on.

Mouse Scroll AnimationScroll to keep reading

Let us help promote your business to a wider following.

Avoiding the merger control blues
Image

Avoiding the merger control blues

Patrick Sarch, Partner, and Sophie Sahlin, Counsel, at White & Case

Effective handling of antitrust issues can help businesses bolster their negotiating position—whichever side of the deal they’re on.

Delays or derailment of a deal by merger control considerations can significantly impact the commercial returns for both parties. But there are a number of steps that businesses can take to mitigate the risk.

Avoid unnecessary ‘triggering events’

In the majority of jurisdictions, a filing is triggered only if there is a ‘change in control’, meaning that a party acquires de jure or de facto joint or sole control over the target. Typically, the acquirer obtains sole control if it alone can decide on strategic matters, such as the budget, business plan, major investments and appointment/removal of senior management. The acquirer would obtain joint control if it can block such decisions (‘veto rights’).

There would be no change in control if the acquirer obtains a non-controlling minority stake in the target company or if the transaction results in ‘shifting alliances’, where each strategic decision is approved by a different combination of shareholders.

Some jurisdictions, however, have chosen to create additional ‘triggering events’ that may cover situations in which an acquirer is not seeking control. For example, the acquisition of a certain percentage of shares or votes in a company constitutes a notifiable transaction in a number of jurisdictions, such as Austria, Germany and Brazil.

In a minority of jurisdictions, a transaction constitutes a notifiable transaction where the acquirer obtains some form of ‘material influence’, but less than control. In Germany, for instance, the acquisition of the ‘ability to exercise competitively significant influence’ constitutes a notifiable transaction. This provision is triggered when the acquisition of less than a 25 per cent stake is accompanied by so-called ‘plus factors’, such as information rights, the right to appoint board members or certain blocking rights. Although not very commonly used, this provision is relevant where the investor is a strategic acquirer with stakes in competing businesses.

Delays caused by notifiable transactions can significantly impact the commercial returns for both parties. Therefore, it may be more commercially attractive to structure the deal to ensure that there is no triggering event. However, it’s important to ensure that the structure and deal documentation reflects the parties’ true intentions, as competition authorities will assess the economic reality of the transaction and consider whether a situation may give rise to de facto control.

Make use of a put and call option agreement

Entering into a put and call option agreement allows the parties to postpone a filing obligation up to the moment in time when the option is exercised, and where a filing obligation may no longer interfere with deal imperatives or competitive conditions may have changed.

There are two scenarios in which such a move could delay timings of aspects of the transaction that may lead to trigger events: where an acquirer is attempting to purchase multiple businesses; and where an acquirer is looking at a large business that can be carved up to be acquired in stages. In the first of these scenarios, acquirers may wish to combine two similar or complementary targets to create synergies, which can give rise to antitrust scrutiny.

Even if the transactions are undertaken separately (i.e., no mutual conditionality) such that separate filings are triggered, both sets of competition authorities (which may or may not be the same) will review the combination if the transactions run in parallel (i.e., simultaneous closing). Even if they are sequential but overlap to some extent, such that the competition authorities reviewing the second of the two transactions would review the combination, the combination would in practice impact the review by the first set of authorities (in particular if the same authorities review both transactions). This could delay closing of both deals, which can put an acquirer at a disadvantage notably in a competitive bidding context. The acquirer would therefore have to balance two potentially conflicting priorities: ensuring that it signs both deals to realise the envisaged synergies, while not jeopardising its chances of signing each one of them because of the implications the combination may have on the process.

One way to manage this balancing act is to proceed with the more pressing deal first and agree on a put and call option on the second deal. Provided that the second seller is willing to wait, the potentially problematic combination is not reviewed until the acquirer exercises the option, which allows the acquirer to put forward a competitive offer for the first deal while securing both deals.

Where the acquirer is looking at one target which alone gives rise to competition issues, it may be possible to acquire part of the business (for example, one manufacturing plant) or a minority stake initially, alongside a put and call option for the remainder of the business. At the point that the acquirer decides to exercise the option, competitive conditions may have changed or the parties could have used the longer lead time to develop remedies to tackle the authorities’ scrutiny.

When exercising staggered acquisitions of several parts of a business involving the same acquirer and seller in the EU, even for acquisitions which are not mutually conditional, extra caution needs to be taken. Even if each individual acquisition would not trigger any filing obligations because the revenue of each part does not hit the filing thresholds, all the staggered transactions involving the same acquirer and seller over a period of two years’ time would become notifiable with the most recent acquisition, if one or several of the transactions taken alone or together triggers the revenue filing thresholds.

Offer an up-front carve-out or remedies

If a merger filing is required and it is expected to give rise to in-depth scrutiny, the acquirer can ensure that competition concerns are addressed up-front to avoid slowing down the overall process.

The parties can carve out assets likely to be causes of concern to the authorities before launching the transaction. However, it must be made clear to the authorities reviewing the transaction that the carved out assets will not fall within the scope of the main transaction nor their review. The authorities will also want to satisfy themselves that the problematic assets have indeed been carved out before the main transaction closes.

An alternative to an up-front carve out is up-front remedies, where the parties offer a comprehensive and clear-cut remedy package in Phase 1 to avoid going through the lengthy and in-depth review of a Phase 2 investigation.

Categories: Legal, M&A


You Might Also Like
Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Selescope Advises Capital Export’s Backing of Celec BIMBO
Legal
24/06/2015Selescope Advises Capital Export’s Backing of Celec BIMBO

Selescope Advises Capital Export's Backing of Celec BIMBO

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
5 Tips To Transport Heavy Equipment Successfully
Strategy
07/02/20235 Tips To Transport Heavy Equipment Successfully

Are you planning on shipping heavy equipment? Have you recently gotten a tender that requires you to move heavy equipment to the project site?

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Anywhere365® Awarded Most Innovative Cloud-Based Contact Centre Platform 2021
Innovation
09/04/2021Anywhere365® Awarded Most Innovative Cloud-Based Contact Centre Platform 2021

We are happy to announce Anywhere365® as this year’s winner of the Global Excellence Award for the Most Innovative Cloud-Based Contact Centre Platform. Anywhere365® is a leading omnichannel dialogue management and cloud contact centre platform, native to M

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Creating Collaborative Business Outcomes: Why Tech and Finance Leaders Should Unite During the M&A Process
Finance
08/04/2025Creating Collaborative Business Outcomes: Why Tech and Finance Leaders Should Unite During the M&A Process

In any competitive marketplace there are lots of drivers for companies to merge and acquire each other. Sometimes it’s about expanding market reach by tapping into markets that a competitor has better footings in, or it could be about being better positioned

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Fraud Detection and Prevention Biggest Challenge Facing Businesses in EMEA
Legal
12/03/2015Fraud Detection and Prevention Biggest Challenge Facing Businesses in EMEA

Fraud detection and prevention has been cited as one of the biggest fraud challenges faced today.

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Ones to Watch in IP, 2016 – Australia
Legal
01/07/2016Ones to Watch in IP, 2016 – Australia

MacMillan Trade Marks Attorneys provides expert advice in all areas of Australian trademarks and intellectual property (IP). They specialise in providing international clients with efficient and effective protection and enforcement for their trademarks and IP

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Sustainable Construction in Malaysia
Leadership
16/04/2015Sustainable Construction in Malaysia

Construction Leaders Commit to Sharpening the Future Outlook for Sustainable Construction in Malaysia.

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Lee Ramps Up Battle Against Uber Acquiring Flyte Tyme
M&A
06/02/2017Lee Ramps Up Battle Against Uber Acquiring Flyte Tyme

Addison Lee, a London-based private hire company have officially acquired US executive car firm Flyte Tyme for $25m (£20.5m).

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
E2V Technologies surges almost 50% after being acquired by Teledyne
Innovation
31/01/2017E2V Technologies surges almost 50% after being acquired by Teledyne

E2V Technologies, a British technology firm that specializes in the development of radio amplifiers, microprocessors and imaging sensors for the medical technology, aerospace, and military sectors, was acquired by USA-based Teledyne in a takeover deal last wee



Our Trusted Brands

Acquisition International is a flagship brand of AI Global Media. AI Global Media is a B2B enterprise and are committed to creating engaging content allowing businesses to market their services to a larger global audience. We have 14 unique brands, each of which serves a specific industry or region. Each brand covers the latest news in its sector and publishes a digital magazine and newsletter which is read by a global audience.

Arrow