German competition authority imposes high fine for 'gun-jumping'
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.15.08
Today the Bundeskartellamt ("FCO") has fined a US-based company EUR 4.5 million for 'gun-jumping' in Germany. This is the highest fine ever imposed by the FCO for implementing a transaction before clearance and as such appears to be in line with the tougher stance competition authorities in Europe are prepared to take for infringements of procedural law.
Pursuant to Section 41(1) of the Act Against Restraints of Competition ("ARC"), concentrations which meet the turnover thresholds laid down in Section 35 ARC, and which are thus subject to the notification requirement under Section 39 ARC, may not be implemented prior to the approval of the FCO. Thus, the German notification requirement, like the US HSR requirement, is "suspensory", and effecting control over the target before the approval of the FCO constitutes gun jumping. According to Section 81(2) para. 1 ARC, such gun jumping is subject to a fine of up to 10% of a company's annual turnover.
In this recent case, following the end of the US HSR waiting period, the US-based company acquired the majority of the target's voting securities, providing it with control over the target's worldwide assets including production facilities and IP-rights. With a view to the ongoing merger control proceeding in Germany, the acquiring company transferred the distribution rights for the target's products in Germany to a third party. Accordingly, the FCO concluded that the company had intentionally violated the obligation under German competition law not to exercise control over the target prior to FCO approval. In setting the fine, the FCO also took account of the fact that the company cooperated during the gun-jumping investigation and divested relevant IP-rights covering the German market as well as granting a license to a third party.
This is the first time that the FCO based a fine for gun-jumping on its "guidelines on the setting of fines" of 15 September 2006. This conduct shows clearly that the FCO is determined to take a tough position even regarding minor acquisitions if the relevant parties deliberately violate the stand still obligation, at least if the transaction is likely to raise substantive competition issues.
For more information, please contact the professionals listed below or your regular Crowell & Moring contacts.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
