Roman Inderst and Stefan Thomas ‘Common Ownership and Mergers between Portfolio Companies’ (2019) World Competition 42(4) 551

The debate on the competitive risks of common ownership has focused on whether passive index investments soften competition among portfolio companies. If this were the case, it would raise the question how it would impact the analysis of horizontal mergers between portfolio companies. The European Commission has, in Dow/DuPont and in Bayer/Monsanto, allowed the possibility that the mere existence of common ownership can contribute to a competitive impediment emerging from a horizontal merger between portfolio companies. This paper, available here, argues that it should not be presumed that common ownership in itself increases anticompetitive effects of a merger between portfolio companies. Instead, this would depend on the facts of the case – from both a price and innovation perspective. Even if it were to be assumed that common ownership has an inherent propensity to impede competition, it cannot be concluded from this that a merger between commonly owned portfolio companies has a larger detrimental effect on prices or innovation activity…

Alec Burnside and Adam Kidane ‘Common Ownership: A EU Perspective’ (2020) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 8 456

This article, available here, examines common ownership through a European lens. The article considers whether the theory of harm flowing from common ownership is sufficiently robust to provide a basis for enforcement, and (if so) whether current European Union competition law tools could be used to that end. The authors argue that it is premature to draw any conclusions as to whether common ownership concerns justify competition enforcement. In any event, levels of common ownership seem to be lower in Europe than in the US, so it is unclear whether intervention would be justified in the EU even if it were in the US. Until a better understanding of the underlying facts and a broad academic consensus emerge, reform prescriptions that have been advanced will remain a solution in search of a problem. Section II describes the common ownership theory of harm. The authors begin by distinguishing between cross-shareholding and common ownership. Cross-ownership arises where one firm acquires a non-controlling…

Einer Elhauge ‘How Horizontal Shareholding Harms Our Economy—And Why Antitrust Law Can Fix It’ (2020) 10 Harvard Business Law Review 10(2) 207

This article, available here, argues that new economic proofs and empirical evidence show that horizontal shareholding in concentrated markets often has anticompetitive effect. The piece also develops new legal theories for tackling the problem of horizontal shareholding. When horizontal shareholding has anticompetitive effects, it is illegal not only under Clayton Act §7, but also under Sherman Act §1. Anticompetitive horizontal shareholding also constitutes an illegal agreement or concerted practice under EU Treaty Article 101, as well as an abuse of collective dominance under Article 102. Part I describes how new proofs and empirical evidence have confirmed that high levels of horizontal shareholding in concentrated product markets can have anticompetitive effects, even when each individual horizontal shareholder has a minority stake. The last few years have seen a deluge of studies – involving economic modelling and empirical research – demonstrating how overlapping horizontal shareholding can lead to anticompetitive effect, even when each individual horizontal shareholder has a minority stake and without…

Anna Tzanaki ‘Varieties and Mechanisms of Common Ownership: A Calibration Exercise for Competition Policy’ (forthcoming)

Minority shareholdings have been on the regulatory agenda of competition authorities for some time. Recent empirical studies, however, draw attention to a new, thought provoking theory of harm: common ownership by institutional investors holding small, parallel equity positions in several competing firms within concentrated industries. The European Commission has already made use of the common ownership theory in its merger enforcement practice, while the US antitrust agencies have proposed amending their merger control reporting thresholds to account for aggregate institutional holdings. This paper, available here, reviews common ownership from the perspective of merger control. It starts with a novel distinction between two types of common ownership – ‘concentrated’, which broadly fits within existing concepts in merger control; and ‘diffuse’, which broadly encompasses the instances of common ownership that avoid merger scrutiny in jurisdictions that rely on control-based thresholds. It is this latter form of common ownership that preoccupies the contemporary debate, and falls through the gaps of competition law. The…

Karen Geurts and Johannes Van Biesebroeck ‘Employment Growth following Takeovers’ (2019) The Rand Journal of Economics 50(4) 916

This paper, available here, takes a sample of takeovers in Belgium over five years, and estimates their impact on employment growth. It finds that the average merger temporarily reduces employment of the combined entity by −1.4%. However, long-term effects are markedly different. Mergers likely to be motivated by acquiring or defending market power show a stronger and permanent employment reduction of −14%, whereas those motivated by efficiency gains lead to employment expansions of +10%. Section I sets the scene. Existing research provides a range of estimates for the employment effects of mergers, with no consensus having emerged about the predominant effect of mergers on employment. Studies that find a negative effect outnumber those that find a positive effect, but all come with caveats. At the same time, the literature has long noted the potential for efficiency gains from mergers. Acquirers often argue that reduced variable costs can offset market power and lead to lower prices, which in turn can raise…

Massimo Motta and Martin Peitz ‘Removal of Potential Competitors – A Blind Spot of Merger Policy?’ (2020) Competition Law and Policy Debate (6)2 19

Mergers that may look conglomerate or vertical at first glance may in essence be horizontal, inasmuch as they involve the removal of a potential competitor. Indeed, many conglomerate and vertical mergers can be addressed from the perspective of potential competition. Economists have started to look into vertical and conglomerate mergers which can be analysed from this perspective in the pharma and digital sectors; however, the issue is not restricted to these sectors. Merger policy must deal with two issues as regards such mergers: (1) how to make sure that potentially problematic mergers are notified and investigated; and (2) how to assess the social costs and benefits of such mergers. This paper, available here, looks at both these issues. Second II looks at the theory and evidence of mergers to remove potential competitors. Large firms have been taking over dozens of small technology firms which have not yet marketed their products, or that were at an initial phase of rollout. Such…

Nicholas Levy ‘Judicial review of merger decisions: An overview of EU and national case law’ (2019) Concurrences Special Issue Mergers Judicial Review

When the European Merger Control Regulation (EMCR) was adopted, there was uncertainty about whether the EU Courts would act as an effective check on the Commission’s enforcement, and exert discipline on its decisions in the same way as U.S. courts discipline the U.S. federal agencies’ determinations of whether mergers should be allowed to proceed. There was also uncertainty as to the scope for timely judicial review. History has proven the sceptics wrong. The EU Courts have played a highly significant role in shaping the law and holding the Commission to account. Although the EU Courts have recognised that judicial deference is embedded in the EU system of merger control, they have nevertheless been ready to subject Commission decisions to careful and comprehensive review. The courts have also protected merging companies’ rights of defence, striking down decisions that have been insufficiently substantiated or based on findings inadequately presented to the merging parties during the administrative process. The EU Courts have also…

Bill Kovacic ‘Competition Policy Retrospective: The Formation of the United Launch Alliance and the Ascent of SpaceX’ (2020) George Mason Law Review

In May 2005, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced plans to form the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture which combined the only two suppliers of medium-to-heavy national security related launch services to the U.S. government. With input from the US Department of Defence (DOD), the FTC cleared the transaction. The FTC’s approval rested on two assumptions: that the efficiencies claimed by the merging parties were significant, and that the DOD and the NASA would use best efforts to facilitate entry into the launch services sector. This article, available here, examines the merger clearance decision and assesses the assumptions supporting this 2006 decision in light of subsequent experience. In short, those assumptions proved justified. ULA thus far has met the reliability expectations that guided the analysis of the DOD and the FTC. From its first days of operation through July 30 2020, ULA has made 140 launches without a failure. The venture has achieved and surpassed the reliability goals that…

Mark Glick, Catherine Ruetschlin and Darren Bush ‘Big Tech’s Buying Spree and The Failed Ideology Of Competition Law’ (forthcoming, Hastings Law Journal)

Big Tech is on a buying spree. Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are gobbling up smaller companies at an unprecedented pace. Google has acquired 270 companies since 2001, including Android, YouTube, and Waze. Microsoft has made over 100 acquisitions in the last ten years, including acquisitions of Skype, Nokia Devices, LinkedIn and GitHub. Amazon has made a similar number of acquisitions. Facebook has acquired ninety companies. The law of competition is not ready for Big Tech’s endless appetite. This article, available here, shows how the extraordinary burden of proof required to prohibit a merger under the potential competition doctrine hobbles antitrust law and policy. It illustrates this problem with a close study of Facebook. The article assembles a database of Facebook’s completed acquisitions—ninety in all—and shows how the “potential competition” doctrine renders competition law entirely impotent to protect the consumer interest in this space. It further argues that, with à simple structural presumption, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)…

Russel Pittman ‘An Economist’s Thoughts on Behavioural Remedies in Merger Enforcement’ (2020) CPI Chronicle April

This paper, available here, argues that, not only does the current consensus favour structural over behavioural remedies, but that the reasons supporting such a trend are stronger than we may have anticipated. Behavioural remedies may be even more complex and raise more complicated economic issues than has been previously appreciated. As such, competition agencies would do well to approach behavioural remedies with great care. The paper begins by outlining the consensus on merger remedies. There is by now a substantial literature examining US and EU experience in imposing merger remedies. A number of “lessons” seem to have become broadly accepted in recent years: (i) structural remedies are generally to be preferred over behavioural remedies; (ii) structural remedies should where possible include the divestiture of complete existing “business units”; (iii) structural remedies may sometimes need to be supported by behavioural measures, if only as a transition mechanism; (iv) the merging firms have clear incentives to seek buyers and/or to package assets…