Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, June 1, 2009

Bidding Markets and Competition Law in the European Union and the United Kingdom

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Pal Szilagyi, Competition Law Research Centre, Hungary discusses Bidding Markets and Competition Law in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT: The first part of a two part article on EC and UK case law on competition in bidding markets, examines EC case law. Discuss economic considerations, particularly auction types and models, the characteristics of ideal bidding markets (illustrated by a diagram) and the impact of collusion, entry deterrence and predatory behavior. Reviews European Commission and Court of First Instance case law on: (1) bidding procedure; (2) the number and frequency of tenders, and duration and value of contracts; (3) undertakings, competitors and market position; and (4) buyers and supply side substitutability.

The second part of a two part article on EC and UK case law on competition in bidding markets, examines Office of Fair Trading and Competition Commission decisions on: (1) the procedure, frequency and value of tenders; (2) undertakings, competitors and market position; and (3) buyers and supply side substitutability. Reflects on the characteristics of EC and UK practice described in the two parts.

June 1, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Merger Action Group v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Helen Davies (Brick Court Chambers) & Richard Blakeley (Brick Court Chambers) describe Merger Action Group v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

ABSTRACT: On December 10, 2008, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) handed down its judgment in Merger Action Group v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2008] CAT 36. The CAT decided: (i) that the Merger Action Group (“MAG”), an unincorporated association formed for the purposes of mounting this legal challenge and constituted of a handful of Scottish businessmen, was made up of “persons aggrieved” within the meaning of section 120(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (“the Act”) but (ii) that the substantive challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision not to refer the merger between Lloyds TSB Group plc (“Lloyds TSB”) and HBOS plc (“HBOS”) to the Competition Commission for investigation should fail.

The claim certainly proved to be dramatic in its execution, not least because MAG’s challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision was brought just hours before the statutory time limit was due to expire and time was undoubtedly of the essence to the prospects of the merger being successfully completed. Ultimately, however, save in two particular aspects on which we focus here, it proved to be unremarkable in its conclusion.

We first discuss the background to the merger and the claim by MAG, followed by the CAT’s substantive conclusion. We then turn to the two more interesting aspects of the CAT’s decision: that the members of MAG had standing to bring the application; and that the appropriate forum of the proceedings was Scotland.

May 31, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)