Apresentação

Este é um informativo diário que traz para o(a) leitor (a) notícias e casos de defesa da concorrência das principais jurisdições antitruste do mundo (CADE, FTC, Comissão Europeia, CMA etc).

Notícias

Publicada pauta da sessão de julgamento da próxima quarta-feira (25/9). Confira!

Oito casos serão apreciados durante a 236ª reunião do Tribunal Administrativo

Publicado em 19/09/2024 09h10 Atualizado em 19/09/2024 09h12

Foi publicada, no Diário Oficial da União desta quinta-feira (19/9), a pauta da próxima sessão de julgamento do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade). A 236ª Sessão Ordinária de Julgamento acontecerá quarta-feira (25/9), às 10h, com transmissão pelo YouTube.    

Ao total, oito casos serão apreciados pelo Tribunal Administrativo, sendo três atos de concentração, quatro processos administrativos e uma apuração de ato de concentração. 

Confira a pauta de julgamento:   

1. Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000711/2024-84

Requerentes: SMR Participações e Investimentos S.A e CIA Paraná de Alimentos S.A.

Relator: conselheiro Diogo Thomson de Andrade

2. Ato de Concentração nº 08700.004023/2024-93

Requerentes: 3R Petroleum Offshore S.A. e Consórcio Papa-Terra.

Relatora: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves

3. Ato de concentração nº 08700.006814/2023-77

Requerentes: Minerva S.A., Marfrig Global Foods S.A e Marfrig Chile S.A.

Terceiro Interessado: Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil – CNA.

Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes

4. Apuração de Ato de Concentração nº 08700.002634/2022-35

Representante: Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica – ex-officio.

Representados: Biogénesis Bagó Saúde Animal Ltda e Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health do Brasil Ltda.

Relator: conselheiro Diogo Thomson de Andrade

5. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.001164/2018-14

Representados: Azevedo Bento S/A Comércio e Indústria, Refisa Indústria e Comércio Ltda, SPO Indústria e Comércio Ltda, Clóvis Heitor Castro; Cristiano Luiz Pereira, Darcy Carvalho da Silveira, Davi Alves de Lima, Edimar Henrique de Oliveira, Edson Geraldo da Silva Bento, Elisangela Alves de Lima Morais, Elislande Alves de Lima, Ênio Costa de Oliveira, Gabriel Teixeira Martinho, Gilberto Alves de Lima, Lauro Barata Soares de Figueiredo, Rafael Luiz Pereira, Sidinei de Souza Padilha, e Valdécio Alves de Lima.

Relator: conselheiro Victor Oliveira Fernandes

6. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002124/2016-10

Representante: Associação Evangélica Beneficente Espírito Santense – AEBES.

Representados: Federação Brasileira das Cooperativas de Especialidades Médicas (Febracem); Cooperativa de Anestesiologia do Estado do Espírito Santo (COOPANEST/ES); Cooperativa dos Médicos Intensivistas do Espírito Santo (Cooperati); Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Plásticos do Estado do Espirito Santo (Cooplastes); Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Gerais do Estado do Espírito Santo (Cooperciges); Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Pediátricos do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopercipes); Cooperativa dos Cirurgiões Cardiovasculares do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopcardio); Cooperativa dos Neurocirurgiões do Estado do Espírito Santo (Coopneuro); Cooperativa de Ortopedistas e Traumatologistas do Espírito Santo (Cootes); Cooperativa dos Angiologistas e Cirurgiões Vasculares do Espírito Santo (Coopangio); Conselho Regional de Medicina do Espírito Santo (CRM-ES); Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia (SBN); Erick Freitas Curi; Paulo Roberto Paiva; Modesto Cerioni Junior e Clemente Augusto de Brito Pereira.

Relator: conselheiro Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima

7. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002160/2018-45

Representados: Sindicato dos Transportadores Autônomos de Contêineres e Cargas em Geral de Itajaí e Região (Sintracon/SC).

Relator: conselheiro Víctor Oliveira Fernandes

8. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003826/2015-30

Representante: Ministério Público do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte.

Representados: Detalhe Serigrafia e Confecções; Francisco Flávio de Carvalho ME, “Infodigital”; F. N. dos Santos Neto – ME, “Ideal Artes Gráficas”; Gerusa Rodrigues de P. Oliveira ME, “Gerusa Confecções”; Gisnaude Gentil Fernandes de Souza – ME, “Gráfica Brasil”; João Batista Dantas Maia ME, “BM Gráfica”; L de L Alves ME, “Gráfica Luzia”; M. C. Batista dos Santos ME, “J L Gráfica”; M. X. Formiga Frota EPP, “Repet Design”; Ricardo Gomes da Silva ME, “RGS Impressos Gráficos”; Francisco Flávio de Carvalho; Francisco Nunes dos Santos Neto; Genildo Epifânio de Oliveira Júnior; Geruciano Rodrigues de Paiva Oliveira; Gisnaude Gentil Fernandes de Sousa; Herlandson de Oliveira Fernandes; João Batista Dantas Maia; Luzinelson de Lima Alves; Maria Consuelo Batista dos Santos; Michelson Ximenes Formiga Frota e Ricardo Gomes da Silva.

Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior

Commission takes note of the withdrawal of referral requests by Member States concerning the acquisition of certain assets of Inflection by Microsoft

Page contents

• Top
• Related topics
• Print friendly pdf
• Contacts for media

The European Commission takes note of the withdrawal of the initial referral requests by seven Member States to review under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’) the acquisition of certain assets of Inflection AI, Inc. (‘Inflection’) by Microsoft Corporation (‘Microsoft). The deadline for the Commission to decide upon these requests was 19 September 2024. Following the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 September 2024 in the Illumina/GRAIL case, holding that Member States cannot refer a transaction to the Commission under Article 22 of the EUMR when not competent to review the transaction under their national merger control rules, all seven Member States that submitted an initial referral have decided to withdraw their requests. Therefore, the Commission will take no decision in this matter.

Microsoft, a global technology company headquartered in the US, offers a wide range of products and services to customers including, among others, an AI chatbot called Microsoft Copilot, a cloud computing platform called Azure, a PC operating system known under the name of Microsoft Windows, and productivity services called Microsoft 365. Inflection, headquartered in the US, is a technology company that, until the transaction, developed a machine learning and generative AI foundation model and an AI chatbot called Pi.

The transaction and the referral procedure

On 19 March 2024, Microsoft announced the hiring of the two co-founders of Inflection, assigned with the task of advancing Copilot and other consumer artificial intelligence products and research at Microsoft. In addition to the hiring of these two co-founders, Microsoft made employment offers to most of Inflection’s staff and agreed, amongst others, on a non-exclusive license for Inflection’s intellectual property and, according to reports, on a waiver of any legal rights by Inflection for hiring the latter’s staff.

Upon review of the details of the transaction and its implementation, based on information provided to the Commission by Microsoft and Inflection, the Commission considers that the transaction involves all assets necessary to transfer Inflection’s position in the markets for generative AI foundation models and for AI chatbots to Microsoft. Further, in view of Inflection’s announcement on 19 March 2024 that the ‘new Inflection’ would shift its focus to a different activity, namely its AI studio business, the Commission regards the agreements entered into between Microsoft and Inflection as a structural change in the market that amounts to a concentration as defined under Article 3 of the EUMR.

The transaction did not reach the notification thresholds set out in Article 1 of the EUMR and was also not notified in any Member State. Based on information requested from Microsoft and Inflection, in July 2024 the Commission considered that the concentration satisfies all criteria for a referral under Article 22 of the EUMR. This provision allows Member States to request the Commission to examine a merger that does not have an EU dimension but affects trade within the Single Market and threatens to significantly affect competition within the territory of the Member States making the request.

Consequently, the Commission sent a letter pursuant to Article 22(5) of the EUMR inviting Member States to refer the transaction to it for review.

In response to this letter, seven Member States submitted a referral request pursuant to Article 22(1) of the EUMR, explaining that, in their view, the transaction amounted to a concentration which satisfies the criteria for a referral pursuant to Article 22 of the EUMR. Other Member States and countries of the European Economic Area were invited to join the requests. Following the Court of Justice’s judgment in the Illumina/GRAIL case, all Member States have chosen to withdraw their referral requests or request to join these referrals, resulting in the end of this procedure.

The Commission will continue to work together with Member States and the parties to concentrations to assess whether their transactions will be reviewed under national merger control regimes or referred to the Commission in line with the legal requirements for such referrals as clarified in the recent Illumina/GRAIL judgment of the Court of Justice.

Related topics

Competition

Mergers

Print friendly pdf

Merger

English

38.124, kB – PDF

Download  

Suspected anti-competitive conduct in relation to the supply of chemicals for use in the construction industry

The CMA is investigating suspected anti-competitive conduct in relation to the supply of chemical admixtures and additives for use in concrete, cement, mortars and related construction products under Chapter I CA98.

From: Competition and Markets Authority

Published17 October 2023Last updated20 September 2024 — See all updates

Case type: CA98 and civil cartels

Case state: Open

Market sector: Building and construction

Opened:17 October 2023

Contents

1. Administrative timetable
2. Update on judicial review of Competition Appeal Tribunal decisions
3. Case information
4. Personal data
5. Contacts
   1. Media enquiries

Administrative timetable

Update on judicial review of Competition Appeal Tribunal decisions

22 April 2024: The High Court handed down judgment in an application for judicial review brought by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of certain decisions made by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

The High Court agreed with the CMA that the Tribunal had made an error in its application of the law – namely, that it was incorrect to state that specific evidence of a ‘propensity’ to destroy electronic or physical documents was always required for a domestic search warrant, and that the Tribunal’s judgment should not therefore be followed in future cases. The High Court also held that the CAT had erred in law and exceeded its powers on certain related procedural matters.  

• High Court judgment (PDF, 288KB) (22.4.24)
• Sealed order (PDF, 1606KB) (2.5.24)
• Press notice: CMA wins legal challenge against CAT on home search warrants (22.4.24)

13 and 14 March 2024: The High Court held a hearing to decide whether to hear and, if so, determine an application for judicial review brought by the Competition and Markets Authority against the Competition Appeal Tribunal arising in connection with an application made by the CMA in October 2023 to the Tribunal for warrants in respect of this investigation. The grounds of judicial review are: that the Tribunal made an error of law in applying s28A(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act 1998; the Tribunal exceeded its powers as concerns citation of authority; and the Tribunal’s order of 8 December 2023 was ultra vires.

Case information

On 17 October 2023, the CMA launched an investigation under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (‘CA98’) into suspected anti-competitive conduct relating to the supply of chemical admixtures and additives for use in concrete, cement, mortars and related construction products in the UK. The investigation concerns a suspected infringement or infringements of Chapter I CA98 involving a number of suppliers of these chemicals and some industry bodies.

No assumption should be made at this stage that the CA98 has been infringed. The CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to any of the parties under investigation. Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections.

If the CMA issues a statement of objections, it will provide the addressee(s) of that statement of objections with an opportunity to make written and oral representations, before it makes a final decision. Further details are available in the CMA’s investigation procedures in CA98 cases.

• Press notice: CMA launches investigation into the supply of chemicals for use in construction industry. (17.10.23)

Personal data

The CMA may collect, use and share personal data for its investigations, including investigations under the Competition Act 1998. This includes processing personal data for the purposes of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. For more information about how the CMA handles personal information, please see the CMA’s Personal Information Charter.

Contacts

For any enquiries relating to this case, please contact:

• Assistant Director: Barbara Lievens, barbara.lievens@cma.gov.uk
• Project Director: Deborah Wilkie, deborah.wilkie@cma.gov.uk
• Senior Responsible Officer: Lucília Falsarella Pereira, lucilia.falsarella-pereira@cma.gov.uk

Media enquiries

• press@cma.gov.uk, 020 3738 6460

Updates to this page

Published 17 October 2023
Last updated 20 September 2024 + show all updates

Notre prochain webinar @Echelle sur l’IA générative se tiendra le 30 septembre

Publié le 20 septembre 2024

Notre prochain événement @Echelle sera diffusé en direct sur notre site via Youtube lundi 30 septembre à partir de 15h00.

Benoît Cœuré, Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence s’entretiendra avec Daron Acemoglu, Professeur au MIT, et Charles Gorintin Cofondateur & CTO d’Alan, sur l’IA générative : quels défis pour l’innovation, l’économie et la concurrence ?
La discussion sera modérée par Elodie Vandenhende, Adjointe au chef du service de l’économie numérique de l’Autorité de la concurrence.

Margrethe Vestager, Vice-présidente exécutive de la Commission européenne et commissaire en charge du numérique et de la concurrence, prononcera le discours de clôture. 

La discussion se tiendra en anglais.

Si vous souhaitez recevoir le lien vers la vidéo, veuillez vous inscrire sur ce formulaire.

AdC adotou uma decisão de não oposição na operação de concentração 54/2024 – ON Tower Portugal / NOS Technology.

Em 18 de setembro de 2024, o Conselho de Administração da Autoridade da Concorrência, no uso da competência que lhe é conferida pela alínea d) do n.º 1 do artigo 19.º dos Estatutos, aprovados pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 125/2014, de 18 de agosto, delibera adotar uma decisão de não oposição à operação de concentração, nos termos da alínea b) do n.º 1 do artigo 50.º da Lei da Concorrência, uma vez que a mesma não é suscetível de criar entraves significativos à concorrência efetiva no mercado nacional ou numa parte substancial deste.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

AdC adotou uma decisão de não oposição na operação de concentração 55/2024 – Alliance Healthcare / Alloga Logifarma.

Em 18 de setembro de 2024, o Conselho de Administração da Autoridade da Concorrência, no uso da competência que lhe é conferida pela alínea d) do n.º 1 do artigo 19.º dos Estatutos, aprovados pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 125/2014, de 18 de agosto, delibera adotar uma decisão de não oposição à operação de concentração, nos termos da alínea b) do n.º 1 do artigo 50.º da Lei da Concorrência, uma vez que a mesma não é suscetível de criar entraves significativos à concorrência efetiva no mercado nacional ou numa parte substancial deste.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

Atos de concentração – Decisões

CADE

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006743/2024-93

Requerentes: ESAB Indústria e Comércio Ltda., The ESAB Group Inc., Sumig Soluções para Solda e Corte Ltda. e Sumig USA Corporation. Aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006664/2024-82

Requerentes: Brasil Tecpar Serviços de Telecomunicações S.A., Acessoline Telecomunicações Ltda., GGNet Telecomunicações Ltda., Itelfibra Telecomunicações Ltda. e Telge Serviços de Telecomunicações Ltda. Aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006823/2024-49

Requerentes: Ultrapar Logística Ltda. e Hidrovias do Brasil S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006782/2024-91

Requerentes: José Ricardo Lemos Rezek, CPSB Patrimonial e Participações Ltda., André Luís Vieira Azin, BRB Banco de Brasília S.A. e BRB Crédito, Financiamento e Investimento S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006907/2024-82

Requerentes: J. Safra Holding S.A., Ludfor Energia Participações Ltda. e Give Energia Ltda. Aprovação sem restrições.

Autorité de la Concurrence

Secteur(s) :

• Distribution
• Grande consommation

24-DCC-202
relative à la prise de contrôle conjoint des sociétés Calao 24 et Calao 98 par la société Jumacle aux côtés de la société ITM Entreprises

Décision de contrôle des concentrations|

Publication du sens de la décision le : 20 septembre 2024

Secteur(s) :

• Santé
• Services

24-DCC-205
relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de la société Adental Groupe par Tikehau Capital

Décision de contrôle des concentrations|

Publication du sens de la décision le : 20 septembre 2024

Atos de concentração – Ingressos

CADE