Images are still loading please cancel your preview and try again shortly.

Accessibility tools

Rhino: EU Merger Control Analysis

Rhino: EU Merger Control Analysis

Like the rhino in the animal kingdom, the EU merger control regime is an obvious and straightforward force in the global merger control landscape. Although it may, at times, appear slow-paced or brutish, it can be surprisingly swift to react when threatened and its instinct is to charge directly at whatever has spooked it.

Rhino is our digital platform for EU merger control analysis with statistics, updated monthly, and commentary.

Three statistics modules focus on Phase I and Phase II intervention rates, the length of prenotification and formal procedure durations and remedies from 2010. The statistics sustain that three themes impact deal review in the EU: intervention rates are increasing, deal reviews take longer and remedies are getting tougher. Click on the boxes below to explore.

Three trends impacting deal review in the EU

Phase I

The number of deals cleared by the European Commission in Phase I  (in non-simplified cases) subject to remedies has increased from 10% of cases to 15% in the past twelve years. It is statistically less likely to achieve unconditional clearance in Phase I.

Pie charts and stats

Phase II

In Phase II, on average, prohibition decisions have increased from 10% to 12%. The number of cases which are withdrawn or abandoned in Phase II has increased from 9% to 21%. We have gone from 19% of deals not getting through, to one third of deals not getting through.

Pie charts and stats

In 2012, a Phase II investigation lasted an average of 9 months, including prenotification and formal review. In 2021 that number was 16 months, an increase of 77%. The years 2020 and 2021 were outlier years with many Phase II cases being delayed due to pandemic related market changes. But if you take the average of 2017, 2018 and 2019 you still arrive at an increase of 34% in the length of time you can expect for a Phase II case compared to the average from 2012 to 2014.

Phase II case duration – prenotification and formal review duration in months*

bar charts and stats

The increase in the duration of the formal review is, in part, due to the increased use of the stop the clock mechanism. The year 2021 is an example of the increase of the use of this mechanism.

Phase II cases with at least one stop-the-clock since 2012

bar charts and stats

If you look at prenotification duration in Phase I remedies cases, you also see an upward trend. In 2012, on average, the prenotification period was 4.3 months. In 2021, the duration was more than 7 months. In the pre-pandemic years 2017, 2018, 2019, prenotification lasted 4.9 months on average, which is still an increase of almost 29% compared to 2012.

Phase I remedies cases – prenotification duration in months*

 

bar charts and stats

2021 data confirmed the upward trend in prenotification duration. It remains to be seen if this will normalise in 2022 and the prenotification duration will shorten to a pre-pandemic level.

Phase I unconditional cases – prenotification duration in months*

Graph of statistical data

In unconditional cases the upward trend is also confirmed. So far in 2022, the duration does not seem to diminish.

*Data points for prenotification duration that fall outside a two standard deviation boundary are not included in the graphs on this page. If you would like to receive the graphs including all prenotification data points, please email Rhino@linklaters.com.

The EC is increasingly requiring up-front buyer remedies, where the parties cannot close the transaction before having entered into a binding agreement with an approved purchaser. This occurs where it is unclear if there will be suitable purchasers.  

We also see an increase in fix-it-first remedies from 2016. The parties must identify a purchaser, have it approved by the EC and enter into a binding agreement before clearance.

bar charts and stats

Remedies cases in manufacturing sectors (2015-2021)

Divestitures in the manufacturing sectors aren’t soft in terms of the substantive overlap that needs to be divested. Only in 23% of cases less than the full overlap has been divested. And chances of the EC accepting such divestiture are not necessarily higher in Phase II compared to Phase I. This shows two things: it is difficult to get away with less than the divestment of the full overlap, but it’s not entirely excluded. And parties do not necessarily get a better deal in Phase II compared to Phase I.

bar charts and stats

Rhino Unleashed: thoughts on EU merger control

Hourglass on table

Pre-notification duration – explaining the increase?

The duration of the EU merger control procedure has a significant impact on mergers and acquisitions in the internal market. In our second post, we reflect on the increase of this duration over the past 10 years and the potential reasons for such an evolution.

Read the second edition of Rhino Unleashed

Picture of a rhino

Stay tuned for more content and subscribe to know when the latest post is out.

Subscribe to Rhino

jumble of traffic lights

Mixing-and-matching – it all depends on perspective

The European Commission and the UK competition authority reached opposite conclusions on the remedies proposed in the Cargotec / Konecranes case. In our first post we explain the diverging views.

Read the first edition of Rhino Unleashed

Sign up to Rhino updates and be the first to receive our new content

Subscribe

Related content

Platypus

Platypus: UK Merger Control Analysis

Please also check out Rhino’s older cousin Platypus. We promise it will keep you heartily entertained and well informed about the UK merger control regime.

Explore our content

 

ball in centre of maze

LinkingCompetition

Welcome to our global competition blog, where you will find insights, commentary and news from our dedicated competition and antitrust lawyers around the globe.

Visit our blog
x Find a Lawyer