A PYMNTS Company

Merger remedies – is it time to go more behavioural?

By  |  February 26, 2020

Thomas Wilson; Kluwer Competition

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Most competition authorities have a preference for
    structural remedies in merger cases in the form of divestitures while
    behavioural remedies are used less frequently. The below blog post analyses
    whether the historical bias of behavioural remedies is still warranted or
    whether it is time that authorities take a more flexible and differentiated
    approach when considering remedies.

    Structural vs. behavioural remedies

    Merger control rules[ make a distinction between structural remedies and behavioural (or conduct) remedies, even though the line between the two can be somewhat blurred and in practice a remedy will often include structural as well as some behavioural elements (so-called hybrid remedy).

    Structural remedies are generally “one-off” measures that are intended to maintain or restore the structure of the market by creating a new or enhanced competitive player. Such remedies are designed to have an immediate market impact (as opposed to having an effect only over time), are intended to be irreversible in nature and do not require continuous monitoring by the authority or third parties. The “classic” structural remedy is a divestiture, i.e. the commitment to sell a business unit. Divestitures are common especially in horizontal mergers…

    Continue Reading…