In a significant legal development, the European Union’s highest court has ruled in favor of Illumina, declaring that the European Commission lacked the authority to review its acquisition of Grail, a liquid biopsy company. According to a statement, the court’s decision nullifies the Commission’s prior actions and spares Illumina from a potentially record-breaking fine. However, the ruling arrives too late to impact the deal, as Illumina has already spun off Grail as a standalone entity amid ongoing antitrust challenges.
The case, which has spanned more than four years, was marked by Illumina’s persistent claims that the European regulators’ opposition to the acquisition was legally unfounded. Now, the Court of Justice of the European Union has validated those claims. Nevertheless, the ruling does little to change the current landscape, with Grail’s spin-out effectively making the point moot in terms of the merger’s actualization.
In response to the ruling, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager acknowledged the court’s decision while emphasizing the broader implications for future merger reviews within the European Union. “We will carefully study the judgment and its implications,” Vestager stated, per a statement.
Related: EU Court Sides with Illumina in High-Profile Merger Case
Vestager defended the Commission’s original actions, highlighting the importance of protecting smaller, innovative companies from being eliminated by larger corporations through what she described as “killer acquisitions.” Such transactions, she noted, can be harmful to competition even when they do not meet the traditional EU notification thresholds. Per her statement
, Vestager pointed out that small firms, despite their limited turnover, can play a critical competitive role in the market, particularly when they are seen as potential innovators or future competitors.
Moving forward, the Commission will continue to accept merger referrals from Member States under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, provided that the legal criteria are met. Vestager reiterated that the Commission remains committed to ensuring that transactions with significant competitive implications are subject to appropriate scrutiny, in compliance with the court’s judgment.
The ruling, though it brings a measure of legal vindication for Illumina, underscores the ongoing tension between global corporations and European regulators over the control and impact of mergers, particularly those involving cutting-edge technologies and innovation-driven companies.
Source: EC Europa
Featured News
UK Competition Watchdog to Investigate Carlsberg’s £3.3bn Takeover of Britvic
Sep 11, 2024 by
CPI
News Corp Faced Millions in Losses by Moving Away from Google Ads, Ex-Executive Testifies
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
EU Faces Critical Innovation Gap, Draghi Report Urges Antitrust Reforms
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Womble Bond Dickinson and Lewis Roca to Merge, Forming 1,300-Lawyer Firm
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawsuit Against Fidelity and Schwab
Sep 10, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI