2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.26.16
Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to release its "2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review." Following a record-breaking year for volume of transactions, this publication provides insight and analysis into developments and trends in global antitrust enforcement of mergers and acquisitions. We examine the antitrust agencies' increasing focus on protecting innovation and emerging forms of competition, requiring broader remedies and more competitive divestiture buyers, and highly scrutinizing transactions in markets where prior consolidation was not challenged. We also look at the agencies' increasing willingness to challenge transactions through litigation, and their relatively successful recent track record.
The report spotlights areas that were particularly noteworthy in 2015, including telecom, health care, energy, and IP and innovation. We also take a look at the first year of Commissioner Vestager's merger enforcement in Europe, the growing influence of third parties in merger review proceedings, and procedural trends at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Antitrust Division that impact the cost and timeline of merger review in the U.S.
Given the likelihood that recent antitrust merger enforcement developments foreshadow what to expect in the coming year, the 2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review provides insight into trends that will be highly relevant going forward. We hope that you will find this report useful and welcome your feedback.
DOWNLOAD PDF:
2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
