Publicado 27/02/2025 às 06h56 – Atualização em 27/02/2025 às 08h41
Notícias da concorrência
Cade determina notificação de operações envolvendo grupo do setor de veículos automotores
Operação foi concretizada pelas empresas antes da notificação da autoridade antitruste
Publicado em 26/02/2025 17h52 Atualizado em 26/02/2025 18h59
O Tribunal do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) determinou, nesta quarta-feira (26/02), a notificação, em até 30 dias, de atos de concentração envolvendo a empresa Mais Distribuidora de Veículos e seu grupo econômico, Grupo Sinal.
A instauração do Procedimento Administrativo de Apuração de Ato de Concentração (Apac) foi motivada por denúncia encaminhada à Superintendência-Geral do Cade em 2019.
Ao ser questionado, o Grupo Sinal informou a ocorrência de catorze diferentes possíveis atos de concentração entre os anos de 2010 e 2020. Em sua maioria, as operações em questão diziam respeito à compra e venda de ativos tangíveis e intangíveis, envolvendo, entre outros, aquisição de estoques, mobiliário, representação comercial de marcas de veículos, entre outros.
Após análise, o conselheiro relator considerou que algumas destas operações não seriam de notificação obrigatória, motivo pelo qual não se justificaria seu conhecimento em sede de análise de estruturas. Todavia, algumas das operações relatadas foram consideradas de notificação obrigatória. Em razão disto, determinou-se sua respectiva notificação no prazo de 30 (trinta) dias da publicação no DOU da ata da sessão de julgamento.
Conforme estabelecido pelo conselheiro relator, Carlos Jaques, o descumprimento da determinação de notificação sujeitará a cada uma das partes uma multa individual de R$ 5 mil por dia de atraso, para cada uma das operações que deixe de ser notificada no prazo determinado.
Neste contexto, o Plenário, por unanimidade, acompanhou todas as determinações apresentadas pelo conselheiro relator e determinou a suspensão da sanção pecuniária de que trata o § 3 do artigo 88, da Lei 12.529/11 até que haja decisão de mérito dos atos de concentração do caso.
Tribunal Administrativo do Cade aprova sem restrições aquisição da Shopper pelo iFood
Operação não apresenta risco à concorrência e busca estimular a competitividade no setor de compras on-line
Publicado em 26/02/2025 12h10 Atualizado em 26/02/2025 18h56
OTribunal do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) aprovou, sem restrições, a aquisição de participação societária da Shopper pelo iFood. A decisão foi unânime e seguiu o voto do relator, conselheiro José Levi, durante sessão de julgamento nesta quarta-feira (26/2).
O iFood, empresa brasileira que atua como plataforma de delivery on-line, conectando consumidores a restaurantes, farmácias, mercados e outros setores, pretende utilizar sua experiência para impulsionar o crescimento da Shopper. A Shopper, por sua vez, é uma plataforma que oferece diretamente itens de mercado para consumidores finais em 129 cidades de São Paulo.
A operação tem como principais objetivos fortalecer a concorrência, expandir a presença da Shopper no mercado e complementar o modelo de negócios do iFood. Segundo as empresas, a aquisição pode trazer benefícios aos consumidores e estimular a competitividade no setor de compras on-line.
O plenário do Cade concluiu que a transação não apresenta riscos à concorrência, pois envolve apenas a aquisição de uma participação minoritária, pelo IFood, e a Shopper ainda tem uma atuação relativamente restrita ao estado de São Paulo.
O ato de concentração pode ser acessado pelo número 08700.008386/2024-06
Commission approves acquisition of Infinera by Nokia
Conteúdo da página
The European Commission has approved unconditionally, under the EU Merger Regulation, the proposed acquisition of Infinera Corporation (‘Infinera‘) by Nokia Corporation (‘Nokia‘). The Commission concluded that the transaction would raise no competition concerns in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’).
The Commission’s investigation
Both Nokia and Infinera supply optical transport equipment used to transmit data through optical fibre cables. According to the parties, the Transaction will allow the merged entity to attain the requisite scale in its optical networking business to accelerate its product roadmap and compete more vigorously with larger competitors in the market.
The Commission investigated the impact of the transaction on the global or EEA markets for the supply of optical transport equipment, as well as on the narrower segments of such markets based on the type/application of the equipment. Based on its market investigation, the Commission found that Nokia and Infinera’s combined market shares in the global or EEA markets for the supply of optical transport equipment, as well as on the narrower segments of such markets, are moderate. It also found that there are several credible competitors on those markets that, following the transaction, will continue to exert sufficient competitive pressure upon Nokia.
The Commission therefore concluded that the proposed acquisition would not raise competition concerns in the EEA and cleared the transaction unconditionally.
Companies and products
Nokia is a publicly traded company headquartered in Finland. It is active globally in a wide range of areas including network infrastructure, mobile networks, cloud & network services and technologies.
Infinera is a publicly traded company headquartered in the US. It is a global supplier of networking solutions, comprising networking equipment, optical semiconductors, software and services.
Merger control rules and procedure
The Commission has the duty to assess mergers and acquisitions involving companies with a turnover above certain thresholds (see Article 1 of the EU Merger Regulation) and to prevent concentrations that would significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area or any substantial part of it.
The vast majority of notified mergers do not pose competition problems and are cleared after a routine review. From the moment a transaction is notified, the Commission generally has 25 working days to decide whether to grant approval (Phase I) or to start an in-depth investigation (Phase II).
For More Information
More information will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number M.11663.
Versão para impressão (pdf)
Commission approves acquisition of Infinera by Nokia
English
La Secretaría de Industria y Comercio actualizó el valor de la Unidad Móvil para el año 2025
Se trata del nuevo valor aplicable a la unidad de cuenta prevista en el artículo 85 de la Ley 27.442 de Defensa de la Competencia y su decreto reglamentario
26 de febrero de 2025
- Compartir en Facebook
- Compartir en Twitter
- Compartir en Linkedin
- Compartir en Whatsapp
- Compartir en Telegram
En virtud de lo dispuesto por el artículo 85 de la Ley 27.442 de Defensa de la Competencia y conforme lo establecido por el mismo artículo del Decreto 480/2018, la Secretaría de Industria y Comercio dictó la Resolución 21/2025 actualizando el valor de la Unidad Móvil a partir del 26 de febrero de 2025, que se estableció en mil ciento dos pesos con veintiocho centavos ($ 1102,28).
Orientações da CMA
Guidance
Exclusion and debarment on competition grounds – what suppliers and contractors need to know
Published 26 February 2025
Applies to England, Northern Ireland and Wales
Contents
- What do ‘exclusion’ and ‘debarment’ mean?
- Mandatory and discretionary exclusion
- Self-cleaning
- Steps for contracting authorities
- How the CMA can help contracting authorities
- Anti-competitive behaviour – consequences and detection
- How to report concerns to the CMA
- Resources
Print this page
From 24 February 2025, the new Procurement Act 2023 strengthens rules to exclude suppliers from taking part in public procurement where they pose particular risks. Changes include a new mandatory exclusion ground for participants in cartel activity, a discretionary exclusion ground for potential competition infringements and the introduction of a central debarment register.
The new exclusion and debarment regime has consequences for cartelists. Suppliers who break competition law risk mandatory exclusion from individual public procurements by a contracting authority. They are also at risk of being added to the new central debarment list, resulting in automatic exclusion from all public procurement contracts for up to 5 years.
There is now an increased incentive for suppliers involved in cartel activity to be the first to report the wrongdoing to the CMA: those first to report under the CMA’s leniency policy can avoid exclusion and debarment.
If you are a supplier that tenders for public sector contracts or a contracting authority that runs tender procedures, the new exclusions and debarment regime is relevant to you.
What do ‘exclusion’ and ‘debarment’ mean?
Exclusion:
Refers to a supplier not being permitted to participate in a tender, or to be awarded a public contract, following an assessment of exclusion grounds by a contracting authority.
Debarment:
A supplier may be placed on a central debarment list by a Minister of the Crown. This will prevent the supplier from participating in any covered procurements (for example, those over a designated threshold for the type of contract and not exempted) or being awarded public contracts for up to 5 years. The list will be managed by the Procurement Review Unit (PRU) and published on GOV.UK.
Debarment is linked to exclusions in that a supplier can only be considered for debarment following an assessment of exclusion grounds.
Mandatory and discretionary exclusion
There are 2 types of competition exclusions that can occur under the new Procurement Act: mandatory (Schedule 6 of the Act) and discretionary (Schedule 7 of the Act).
Mandatory exclusion applies when:
- a supplier has been found (by the CMA or another regulator) to have broken competition law by taking part in cartel activity (which includes colluding with competitors to rig bids, fix prices or share markets), or has been convicted of the criminal cartel offence under the Enterprise Act 2002
- the circumstances giving rise to the exclusion ground are continuing or likely to occur again
If a supplier falls within the mandatory exclusion ground or is on the debarment register for a mandatory exclusion ground, contracting authorities must exclude it from a procurement.
Discretionary exclusion applies when:
- the contracting authority or Minister considers that a supplier has engaged in cartel activity or in other non-cartel CA98 infringement decisions, including anti-competitive agreements, abuse of a dominant position (such as excessive or discriminatory pricing) or resale price maintenance
- the circumstances giving rise to the exclusion ground are continuing or likely to occur again
If a supplier falls within a discretionary exclusion or is on the debarment register for a discretionary exclusion ground, contracting authorities may exclude it from a procurement.
Suppliers should note that they may be excluded from public procurement contracts if an exclusion ground applies to a ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ person. This can include directors, parent or subsidiary companies, and key sub-contractors.
A supplier will not be excluded, either on a mandatory or discretionary basis, if it is an immunity recipient or an individual who is immune from prosecution for cartel conduct. This applies to all leniency recipients that benefit from a 100% reduction in a fine.
In addition, suppliers who have engaged in cartel activity, but do not benefit from immunity, may avoid exclusion or debarment on competition law grounds if they can demonstrate that they have ‘self-cleaned’.
Self-cleaning
Determining whether the mandatory or discretionary competition exclusions apply to a supplier requires an assessment of whether the circumstances giving rise to the exclusion ground are continuing or likely to occur again. This involves an assessment of whether the supplier has ‘self-cleaned’. The Procurement Act sets out a number of factors a contracting authority or Minister can take into account when assessing whether a supplier has self-cleaned (in Section 58) and include:
- evidence that the supplier, associated person or connected person has taken the circumstances seriously, for example by paying compensation
- steps that the supplier, associated person or connected person has taken to prevent the circumstances occurring again, for example by changing staff or management, or putting procedures and training in place
- commitments that such steps will be taken, or to provide information or access to allow verification or monitoring of such steps
- the time that has elapsed since the circumstances last occurred
- any other evidence, explanation or factor that the authority considers appropriate
Applying for and being granted leniency and/or entering into a settlement agreement with the CMA under the Competition Act 1998 may be relevant evidence that a supplier can introduce to demonstrate that it has taken the circumstances giving rise to the application of an exclusion ground seriously for the purposes of the self-cleaning assessment.
Steps suppliers may take to avoid exclusion or debarment
For suppliers, the best way to avoid exclusion or debarment on competition grounds is to understand and remain compliant with competition law. Read our compliance advice on our Cheating or Competing campaign page and share compliance materials with all staff.
However, if you realise you have been involved in cartel activity which breaks competition law, there are steps you can take:
Admit wrongdoing and be the first to apply for leniency:
If a supplier is the first to report cartel activity to the CMA and is granted a 100% discount on any financial penalty under the CMA’s leniency policy, it will not be excluded from public procurement or appear on the central debarment list
‘Self-cleaning’:
Before deciding whether a supplier should be excluded, the contracting authority must give the supplier a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that it has ‘self-cleaned’ – as noted above, if applicable, a supplier may want to provide evidence of being granted leniency and/or entering into a settlement agreement with the CMA as these may be relevant evidence for the purposes of the self-cleaning assessment
Steps for contracting authorities
The new regime applies to all contracting authorities in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland. It is however applicable to suppliers which operate and/or are incorporated in Scotland. From 24 February 2025, prior to awarding public contracts, contracting authorities must determine whether exclusions apply to potential suppliers including assessing if a supplier has ‘self-cleaned’. To help them with that assessment, contracting authorities can:
- check the central debarment list on GOV.UK before procurement exercises
- check the CMA decisions register for infringement decisions
- check for ongoing investigations in the CMA case list
How the CMA can help contracting authorities
It is for a contracting authority to determine whether an exclusion applies to a particular supplier. However, the CMA can help in a number of ways. Contracting authorities can contact the CMA by emailing cma_procurementsupport@cma.gov.uk to:
- confirm whether a supplier is an immunity recipient. Guidance on leniency can also be found in the CMA leniency guidance
- check whether an infringement was through participation in a cartel (including practices such as fixing or co-ordinating purchase or selling prices or other trading conditions, sharing markets and customers, bid-rigging or output restrictions) if it is not clear from the published decision
- ask for more information to assist them in determining whether the discretionary exclusion grounds apply where a supplier is or may be under investigation
- confirm whether a particular supplier has been granted leniency and/or entered into a settlement agreement for the purpose of self-cleaning assessments. This information will also normally be set out in published CMA decisions and may be relevant evidence to demonstrate that a supplier has taken the circumstances giving rise to the application of an exclusion ground seriously – which is a relevant factor in the self-cleaning assessment
Contracting authorities can also reduce bid-rigging risk by following the CMA’s bid-rigging advice for public sector procurers. If you suspect bid-rigging or would like a free CMA teach-in on bid-rigging red flags, please contact us by emailing cma_procurementsupport@cma.gov.uk.
Anti-competitive behaviour – consequences and detection
Anti-competitive behaviour can take many forms, such as abusing a dominant market position, colluding with other businesses to fix prices or rig bids or restricting how much other businesses can sell your product for.
Public sector procurement is particularly vulnerable to bid-rigging which can, on average, increase costs by 20% or more and prevent honest businesses from competing on a level playing field.
How to watch this YouTube videoThere’s a YouTube video on this page. You can’t access it because of your cookie settings.You can change your cookie settings or watch the video on YouTube instead:Bid rigging: cheating or competing? UK’s Competition and Markets Authority
The CMA has advanced data science capabilities to help spot suspicious bidding patterns in public sector procurement, as well as robust investigative powers at our disposal.
The risk of getting caught breaking competition law is, therefore, high, and the consequences are serious including big fines for companies and for individuals, director disqualification (up to 15 years) and in most serious criminal cases – prison (up to 5 years). Now, under the new regime, there is also the additional risk of exclusion and debarment from public sector frameworks.
How to report concerns to the CMA
If you witness or suspect another business breaking the law:
- never confront a supplier yourself
- call us on 020 3738 6888
- email us at cartelshotline@cma.gov.uk
If you’ve been involved:
- come forward and you may get leniency
- call us on 020 3738 6833 and we can provide confidential guidance.
- always seek independent legal advice
Resources
If you want to know more:
- Further information on the exclusion and debarment regime is set out in Cabinet Office Guidance: Exclusions and Cabinet Office Guidance: Debarment.
- the CMA will provide additional guidance on the interplay between the new procurement regime and the CMA’s leniency regime in the CMA’s consultation document and draft leniency guidance to be published for consultation shortly.
- further information on how the new Procurement Act applies to devolved contracting authorities is set out in Cabinet Office Guidance: Devolved Contracting Authorities.
- further examples of anti-competitive behaviour can be found in Avoid and report anti-competitive activity: Types of anti-competitive activity.
- Procurement Review Unit: Before using the Procurement Review Unit service
Decisões da concorrência
CADE
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.001094/2025-15
Partes: Mercantil do Brasil Marketplace e Empreendimentos Imobiliários S.A. e Agência Estado S.A. Aaprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.001283/2025-98
Requerentes: JBS Holding Brasil S.A. e Mantiqueira Alimentos Ltda. Adprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.001612/2025-09
Requerentes: Via Appia Concessões S.A., Castello Fund SCSp, SICAV-RAIF, Castello Global Alpha e Concessionária Rodovias do Tietê S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.001415/2025-81
Partes: Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE) Ltd e Nordic Aviation Capital Designated Activity Company. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.002021/2025-41
Requerentes: Nova Marinas S.A., BR Marinas S.A., Angramar Administradora de Bens Ltda. e Glamis Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia. Aprovação sem restrições.
Comissão Europeia
AZ DIRECT / IPTIQ
Merger
Last decision date: 26.02.2025 Simplified procedure
NOKIA / INFINERA
Merger
Last decision date: 26.02.2025
CMA
Global Business Travel Group, Inc / CWT Holdings, LLC merger inquiry
- The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the anticipated acquisition by Global Business Travel Group, Inc of CWT Holdings, LLC.
- Updated: 26 February 2025
Autorité de la Concurrence
Secteur(s) :
25-DCC-43
relative à la fusion de fait entre la société Südwest Beteiligungen GmbH et les activités d’acier d’armature du groupe Van Merksteijn
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 26 février 2025
Secteur(s) :
25-DCC-44
relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de deux fonds de commerce appartenant au groupe Intermarché par le groupe Carrefour
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 26 février 2025
Temas relacionados
Acesse todos os clippings da concorrência
https://webadvocacy.com.br/category/clipping-da-concorrencia
Principiais sítios eletrônicos de defesa da concorrência do mundo
CADE – Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica
FTC – Federal Trade Commission
USDOJ – Departamento de Justiça dos EUA
Comissão Europeia – Responsável pela política da concorrência na Europa
CMA – Autoridade da Concorrência do Reino Unido
Autorité de la Concurrence – Autoridade da Concorrência da França
AdC -Autoridade da Concorrência de Portugal
CNMC – Autoridade Concorrência da Espanha
CNDC – Autoridade Concorrência da Argentina
AGCM – Autoridade Concorrência da Itália
COFECE – Autoridade Concorrência do México