Search results

The paper aims to reveal the attitude of the Russian competition authorities towards cross-border mergers involving foreign buyers. The study addresses the following question: Is the probability of Russian competition authorities' intervention significantly different when a foreign buyer takes part in the merger? This is the key test to reveal whether competition authorities gravitate towards “economic nationalism” or “promotion of foreign investments”.

The discrete choice model is applied to the dataset of 7,607 merger cases investigated by the Russian competition authorities between 2012 and 2017. The probability of competition authorities' intervention, such as merger correction by using remedies or deal rejection, is used as a measure of special attention.

The study finds out favoritism patterns of the regulator with regard to foreign companies. In particular, the deals involving a foreign buyer had less chance of intervention, i.e. imposition of remedies, from national competition authorities. The sanctions period does not moderate the probability of approval of a cross-border merger with foreign buyers by the Russian competition authorities.

The paper contributes to merger control literature by addressing the political economy issues. It discovers that, besides regulation by the law, there are hidden motives, such as protectionism or favoritism of foreign companies, which could drive the regulator's decision. Therefore, the studies of cross-border mergers provide an opportunity to investigate the political issues of merger control through the identification of a special attitude to foreign companies and analysis of regularities that might explain such a policy.

After a series of recent Delaware Chancery Court and Delaware Supreme Court decisions and the standard of judicial review applied in challenges to “going‐private” transactions, controlling stockholders seeking to privatize their subsidiaries may be induced to do so by means of a two‐step acquisition (i.e., unilateral tender or exchange offer, followed by a short‐form merger) instead of a negotiated, single‐step merger. That said, there are a range of practical considerations for public M&A advisors in the wake of these decisions that may not necessarily make the two‐step method the “be all and end all” approach. In any case, there is an incongruity in Delaware’s common law, which is policy‐driven and, to some degree, formalistic, and which may no longer be as defensible today as it once may have been. Accordingly, a critical review of the applicable Delaware precedents and, ultimately, the reversal or modification thereof, seems appropriate at this time.

Even though there is a vast body of research on the performance of mergers in the developed markets, many issues are still unresolved. There is almost negligible research in the form of published papers on the performance of merged firms and the strategic factors impacting this performance, in the context of Indian industry. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge.

The study uses a quantitative method and statistically analyses secondary data.

The study finds that merged firms demonstrate better operating performance as compared to both their industries and their pre‐merger performance. Merging firms belonging to unrelated industries appear to be performing better in the long‐term as compared to the related firms. Mergers which witness transfer of corporate control demonstrate a better performance than the ones that do not. Sick acquired firms negatively impact long‐term performance.

The first limitation of the study is that the financial sector has not been included since it follows different accounting norms. The second limitation is that the findings apply broadly across Indian industry and the limited sample size does not facilitate an industry‐specific focus. The study points towards further research using a longer time frame that might help understand longitudinal variations in merged firm performance. It also encourages future finer‐grained studies on each of the factors which impact merged firm performance.

Managers can prudently utilize mergers to improve firm performance in Indian industry. It appears that firms belonging to unrelated industries bestow better long‐term post‐merger cash flow returns. Managers in India do not thus have to constrain themselves to only horizontal mergers. Managers would be well‐advised to improve on their managerial capabilities since this study points towards a developing market for corporate control in the Indian context.

This is probably the first paper of its kind on research on the performance of merged firms in India.

The goal of this chapter is to analyse the decisions of the Croatian Competition Agency in the field of grocery retail mergers in the 2004–2009 period. In particular, various criteria used by the Competition Agency to evaluate grocery retail mergers are identified and discussed.

Using the comparative approach the author attempts to detect the relevant sources for certain solutions embraced by the Competition Agency by examining especially the relevant practice of the European Commission as well as relevant decisions adopted by some competition authorities in EU member states.

The grocery retail market in Croatia has seen a flurry of mergers since 2004 with the largest competitor spreading to various local markets. For the Croatian competition authority this merger wave has perhaps been the biggest challenge since its inception. In the face of growing market concentration, the authority saw fit to shift from initially providing green light to duly notified transactions to subsequently addressing serious competition concerns by ordering a number of remedies. The Croatian competition authority relied extensively on EU acquis when deciding on specific merger cases, especially as regards the relevant market definition.

The value of the chapter is reflected in the fact that this kind of comparative analysis of Croatian merger cases in the field of grocery retail mergers was not available before. It is especially in the light of the accession of Croatia to the EU, as foreseen on 1 July 2013, that this kind of study becomes useful both for domestic but also EU audience.

Examines, with special regard to business, the operation of certain aspects of the Merger Control Regulation (MCR), particularly the “one‐stop‐shop‐approach”, that is likely to be reappraised at the forthcoming inter‐governmental conference or the scheduled review of the MCR. Uses the critical concepts of certainty, uniformity and transparency, to explore the scope and effectiveness of the “one‐stop‐shop‐approach” with regard to: definition of a community dimension; distinct markets (Article 9 MCR) and parallel EC/member state enforcement (Article 21 MCR and Article 223 Treaty of Rome). Looks at the role of subsidiarity. Addresses the questionable interpretation by the Commission of the MCR’s applicability to oligopolistic dominance. Considers the proposal for an independent cartel office, particularly with regard to enhancing transparency and certainty in decision making. Concludes by proposing an alternative definition of community dimension, not based on the size of the parties measured by aggregate turnover of all their products, but rather on the competition spillover effects on the specific product markets affected by the concentration.

In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of mergers and takeovers in the UK referred by the Office of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation and report. This reflects an ongoing concern of the UK competition authorities with the maintenance and promotion of competitive markets. Surveys UK merger policy alongside a concurrent development – the introduction in 1990 of a new supranational Merger Regulation by the European Community. Outlines the regulatory frameworks operating in the UK and EC and highlights particular points of interest in the application of policy control by reference to selected merger cases.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of the various mergers of the local exchange companies in the USA.

The authors evaluate all of the mergers that took place between 1988 and 2001 on several measures of performance for the firms that have undergone the mergers.

The analysis reveals that the impacts of mergers on the several measures of efficiency that have been evaluated have all been negative.

If the efficiency motive has been primary in influencing merger approvals, then the past mergers approved have led to inefficiencies, corresponding welfare losses for the American consumer, and the mergers of communication common carriers have not been in the public interest. On the other hand, given the inefficiency outcomes, views that the quiet life, hubris and a quest for possible market power have motivated the mergers cannot be discarded.

The results have considerable salience across industry segments and geographies where mergers are being considered and evaluated, since they call into question the strategic and public policy logic behind merger consummation.