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).
Resumo
A concorrência pelo mundo começa a semana trazendo duas importantes notícias. A primeira vem do FTC e se refere esforços que continuarão a ser envidados pela autoridade para incluir na análise antitruste os efeitos das fusões e aquisições sobre o mercado de trabalho e, a segunda, se refere ao lançamento do estudo sobre complaince concorrencial realizado pela Japan Fair Trade Commission – JFTC
Com o estudo proposto, a JFTC objetiva avaliar como as empresas estão respondendo às tendências recentes nas seguintes áreas, além do desenvolvimento geral e implementação de programas de conformidade com a Lei Antimonopólio.Especificamente, com o recente avanço rápido das tecnologias de TI, como a IA, há preocupações crescentes sobre o potencial de violações da Lei Antimonopólio por meio do uso de algoritmos e IA.
Com relação as operações de fusões e aquisições ocorridas no Brasil e no mundo, vale registrar que a Superintendência-Geral do CADE aprovou sem restrições por rito sumário a operação que envolve as empresas Camil Alimentos S.A., Rice Paraguay S.A. e Villa Oliva Rice S.A. (mercado de beneficiamento e comercialização de arroz), e que a Autoridade Britânica de Defesa da Concorrência – CMA avança na análise das fases 2 dos casos Vodafone/CK Hutchison (proposta de formação de uma joint-venture nos mercados de fornecimento de serviços móveis no varejo e atacado no Reino Unido) e Spreadex / Sporting Index (Aquisição completa do B2C business pela empresa Sporting Index Limited no mercado de prestação de serviços licenciados de apostas esportivas online em Reino Unido). Ambos os casos estão na fase de imposição de remédios.
Notícias
Statement on Memorandum of Understanding Related to Antitrust Review of Labor Issues in Merger Investigations
The Federal Trade Commission has notified the other parties that it will withdraw from a Memorandum of Understanding with federal labor agencies related to merger investigations. The agency will continue to closely scrutinize all issues related to mergers, including potential impacts on labor, in accordance with its merger guidelines.
Presentación de la CNDC sobre el control de concentraciones económicas en el Colegio de Abogados
Lucas Trevisani Vespa, vocal de la Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia (CNDC), conversó acerca del régimen vigente de control de concentraciones económicas en la Comisión de Defensa de la Competencia del Colegio de Abogados de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires
Durante el encuentro, que se llevó a cabo el 25 de septiembre en la sede del Colegio de Abogados de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, el vocal de la CNDC, Lucas Trevisani Vespa, conversó con Marcos Nazar Anchorena, presidente de la Comisión de Defensa de la Competencia del Colegio, y con Santiago del Río, socio del estudio de abogados Marval O ́Farrel Mairal, acerca del presente del régimen de control de las operaciones de concentración económica.
A lo largo de la conversación, se hizo una evaluación del Reglamento para la Notificación de Operaciones de Concentración Económica, que fue aprobado en 2023 y lleva en vigencia un año. Los nuevos formularios de notificación, F0, F1 y F2 fueron ponderados, aunque algunos aspectos podrían ser revisados en el futuro. También los Informes de Objeción fueron resaltados como una herramienta fundamental y un hito de relevancia en el procedimiento de control.
Asimismo, fue anunciada la próxima publicación de reglamentaciones específicas para las Opiniones Consultivas y las Diligencias Preliminares, las cuales serán sometidas a consulta pública.
Statement by the Secretary General at a regular press conference (September 18, 2024)
September 18, 2024 Japan Fair Trade Commission
Today, I would like to explain the following matters: (1) Launch of Market Study on Corporate Compliance and (2) Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the Japan-U.S. Competition Cooperation Agreement.
Launch of Market Study on Corporate Compliance
The JFTC has been actively supporting initiatives by enterprises to promote Antimonopoly Act compliance, with the aim of fostering an environment where competitive business activities can be conducted autonomously. As part of these efforts, we published the “Guide for the Design and Implementation of an Effective Antimonopoly Act Compliance Program” in December last year.
In recent years, on the other hand, there have continued to be cases where Antimonopoly Act compliance appears not to be functioning effectively. For instance, in some cease and desist orders issued against enterprises that violated the Antimonopoly Act, those companies have been ordered to implement measures to prevent recurrence, including the establishment of compliance systems. In response, the JFTC has decided to conduct a study on Antimonopoly Act compliance aimed at further improving the effectiveness of enterprises’ compliance efforts. This study targets 1,643 companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Prime Market (as of the end of August 2024, excluding foreign companies).
This is the first study on Antimonopoly Act compliance targeting listed companies in 12 years, since the last one conducted in 2012.
As for the content of the study, we aim to assess how enterprises are responding to recent trends in the following areas, in addition to the general development and implementation of Antimonopoly Act compliance programs. Specifically, with the recent rapid advancement of IT technologies such as AI, there are growing concerns about the potential for Antimonopoly Act violations through the use of algorithms and AI. At the same time, there are also cases where AI is being utilized in audits undertaken to detect violations of the Antimonopoly Act. In recent years, efforts to ensure proper price pass-through in response to rising labor and other costs have gained importance. Compliance initiatives related to Antimonopoly Act violations other than cartels and bid-rigging have also become increasingly significant.
In this study, we consider it important to gather and analyze information on how enterprises are responding to the latest developments, notably the use of algorithms and AI, as well as the proper price pass-through in response to rising labor and other costs, and actions related to Antimonopoly Act violations other than cartels and bid-rigging. Based on the analysis, we intend to propose measures to further enhance the effectiveness of Antimonopoly Act compliance. These aspects are considered crucial in our approach. In addition, we plan to revise the “Guide for the Design and Implementation of an Effective Antimonopoly Act Compliance Program” based on the results of the study.
We plan to conduct a web questionnaire targeting companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Prime Market from early October to mid-November. We sincerely hope that you will understand the purpose of this survey and kindly provide your cooperation.
Please note that this matter is being handled by the General Affairs Division of the Economic Affairs Bureau.
Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the Japan-U.S. Competition Cooperation Agreement
This agreement was signed in 1999 and marks its 25th anniversary this year. The meeting was held in Washington, D.C., and was attended by JFTC Commissioner Reiko Aoki, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. In addition to reflecting on the cooperative relationship to date, both sides confirmed their undertakings to continue working together on future competition law challenges.
The JFTC views this as a highly meaningful opportunity to reaffirm the cooperative relationship between Japan and the U.S. in the field of competition law and continues our close collaboration with the United States to ensure the effective enforcement of competition laws and the fostering of a healthy market environment in both countries.
Requerentes: Crescera Growth Capital Master V Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia e Nava Serviços e Outsourcing Ltda. Aprovação sem restrições.
The CMA is investigating the anticipated joint venture between Vodafone Group Plc and CK Hutchison Holdings Limited concerning Vodafone Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited.
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).
Resumo
No cenário nacional, a concorrência pelo mundo desta sexta-feira destaca a aplicação de multa pelo CADE aos participantes do cartel do sal, a aprovação por rito sumário da operação Zamp III S.A./Subway International Franchise Holdings LLC e do ingresso de três novas operações: Wiz Co Participações e Corretagem de Seguros S.A./BMG CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LTDA.; Betfair Brasil Holdings Ltda./NSX Enterprise N.V.; e Enauta Energia S.A.; ExxonMobil Exploração Brasil Ltda.
Com o ingresso destas três operações, o CADE já contabiliza, no mês de setembro, a notificação de 43 atos de concentração, sendo que 31 destes já foram aprovados pela Superintendência-Geral do CADE – SG no mês.
No cenário internacional os destaques ficam por conta da: investigação pela CMA (Autoridade Britânica de Defesa da Concorrência) em torno de possíveis condutas anticompetitivas praticadas no mercado de reciclagem de veículos; aplicação de multa pela CMA ao grupo Tereos por prestação incorreta de informação na fase 2 de investigação no caso T&L Sugars / Tereos ; imposição de processo disciplinar contra a Ordem dos Advogados de Barcelona (ICAB) por parte da CNMC (autoridade espanhola de defesa da concorrência); e notificação do caso Vossloh / Sateba a Autoridade da Concorrência de Portugal.
Notícias
Cade multa em mais R$ 14 milhões participantes do cartel de sal
Práticas anticompetitivas teriam ocorrido por cerca de 20 anos
Publicado em 26/09/2024 14h55
O Tribunal do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade), em sessão de julgamento realizada nesta quarta-feira (25/9), condenou uma empresa e três pessoas físicas por formação de cartel no mercado nacional de sal marinho. As multas aplicadas somam mais de R$14 milhões.
O processo, oriundo de desmembramento do Processo Administrativo nº 08012.005882/2008-38, foi instaurado em 2018, após o Cade tomar conhecimento de novas evidências de participação de pessoas físicas e jurídicas no chamado “Cartel de Sal” . O conluio atuou por cerca de 20 anos e contou com o apoio de associações e sindicatos do setor. Os envolvidos reuniam-se para definir os preços praticados, controlar a oferta do produto e dividir o mercado entre si.
No julgamento, o voto do conselheiro relator Victor Oliveira Fernandes foi acompanhado, por unanimidade, pelo Tribunal Administrativo.
Suspected anti-competitive conduct in relation to the recycling of end-of-life vehicles
The CMA is investigating suspected anti-competitive conduct in relation to the recycling of old or written-off vehicles, specifically cars and vans, also known as ‘end-of-life vehicles’ or ELVs.
Investigation continuing: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
April 2024 to September 2024
Investigation continuing: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
July 2023 to March 2024
Investigation continuing: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
December 2022 to July 2023
Investigation continuing: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
March to December 2022
Initial investigation: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
March 2022
Investigation opened
Penalty notice
Court of Appeal unanimously upholds the CMA’s appeal relating to jurisdictional challenges brought by BMW AG and VW AG
17 January 2024: In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal has fully upheld the CMA’s appeal against a combined High Court and Competition Appeal Tribunal judgment which had limited the CMA’s power to issue formal information requests to overseas entities.
Update on High Court and Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) judgment
8 February 2023: The High Court and CAT have handed down a combined judgment in relation to: (i) a judicial review application by Volkswagen AG relating to the CMA’s decision to issue a notice requiring it to produce documents and information under section 26 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98); and (ii) an appeal by BMW AG of the CMA’s decision to impose a penalty under section 40A CA98 for BMW AG’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed on it pursuant to section 26 of the CA98. The High Court and CAT have found in Volkswagen AG’s and BMW AG’s favour.
“We are disappointed with today’s judgment. We need effective tools to investigate suspected unlawful conduct and ensure robust enforcement under the Competition Act. Increasingly, our investigations involve cross-border, multi-national organisations, and today’s judgment substantially risks undermining our ability to investigate, enforce against and deter anti-competitive conduct that harms consumers, businesses and markets in the UK.
“Given the importance of today’s judgment, we will be seeking permission to appeal.”
Notice of penalty
8 December 2022: The CMA has published a notice of a penalty imposed on Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW AG) under section 40A of the CA98. The CMA imposed the penalty on 6 December 2022 because BMW AG, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement imposed on it pursuant to section 26 of the CA98.
On 15 March 2022, the CMA launched an investigation into suspected breaches of competition law relating to the recycling of old or written-off vehicles, specifically cars and vans, which are known in the industry as ‘end-of-life vehicles’ or ELVs. The investigation concerns suspected infringements of Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (‘CA98’) involving a number of vehicle manufacturers 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. See here for further detail of the CMA’s investigation procedures in CA98 cases.
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.
Published 15 March 2022 Last updated 27 September 2024 + show all updates
Tereos fined for failure to comply with CMA merger procedures
The CMA has found that Tereos failed to comply with a requirement to produce information in connection with its recent investigation into Tereos’ deal with T&L Sugars.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has imposed a fine of £25,000 on Tereos SCA and Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited (together Tereos) for failing to provide relevant information in relation to the T&L Sugars/Tereos merger inquiry.
As part of the CMA’s phase 2 investigation, a notice was sent to Tereos under section 109 of Enterprise Act 2002 (the Act) requiring the production of certain minutes and internal documents in relation to its board and corporate governance. Tereos responded to the notice, however, following further enquires by the CMA it was found that Tereos failed, without reasonable excuse, to provide a full response.
In particular, the CMA Inquiry Group found that Tereos’ interpretation of the scope of the notice was unjustifiably narrow and untenable when viewed in the context of the object of the merger inquiry and that the failure was capable of having an adverse impact on the CMA’s investigation.
In order to reach sound decisions that benefit consumers and the UK economy as efficiently as possible, it is essential that the CMA is able to gather all the evidence it requires. Parties must therefore comply, on time and in full, with requests for information from the CMA during an investigation.
Richard Feasey, Chair of the independent inquiry group which led the investigation, said:
It’s important that firms respect the UK merger review process – which includes providing all the information we need to promptly progress our investigation.
Firms and their advisers must not apply their own narrow, artificial interpretation of our formal information gathering requirements– as Tereos has done so here. Had they responded properly then Tereos could have avoided this fine altogether.
Currently, where there is a failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a requirement of a notice under section 109 of the Act, the maximum fixed penalty the CMA is able to impose is £30,000. This is due to increase to 1% of the total value of a business’s worldwide turnover once amendments introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) come into force.
A copy of the full notice is available via the case page.
Tereos was represented in the CMA’s investigation by its solicitors, Squire Patton Boggs.
The CMA received and considered the documents relevant to the notice under section 109 of the Act from Tereos in advance of clearing the merger on 3 September 2024.
Where a party fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with investigatory requirements such as a notice requiring the production of documents, the CMA may impose an administrative penalty on that party. The CMA has published guidance Administrative penalties: Statement of Policy on the CMA’s approach (CMA4) on the CMA’s approach and powers in relation to imposing administrative penalties. A draft version of an updated version of the guidance, incorporating changes by the DMCCA was recently consulted on and the CMA is currently analysing feedback following the consultation closing on 23 August 2024.
The DMCCA received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. It is currently anticipated that the relevant parts (Part 2, section 143(1) and Schedule 10 paragraph 17) of the DMCCA which relate to the amount of a penalty that can be imposed by the CMA under section 111 of the Act will enter into force in December 2024 or January 2025. These amendments to the Act increase the maximum penalty amount that can be imposed on a business for not complying, without reasonable excuse, with a notice under section 109 from £30,000 to 1% of the annual worldwide turnover in the case of a fixed penalty and from £15,000 to 5% of the daily worldwide turnover of the business in the case of a daily amount.
For media enquiries, contact the CMA press office on 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk.
La CNMC inicia un expediente sancionador contra el Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona (ICAB)
27 Sep 2024 | Competencia Nota de prensa
Habría vuelto a recomendar precios incumpliendo no solo la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC), sino también dos resoluciones de la CNMC de 2018 y 2020.
En ellas ya se habían sancionado este tipo de prácticas por parte del ICAB y otros ocho Colegios de Abogados .
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha incoado un expediente sancionador contra el Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona (ICAB) por un posible incumplimiento de dos Resoluciones que prohibían realizar recomendaciones de precios sobre los honorarios de los abogados (SNC/100/24 ICAB).
En marzo de 2018, la CNMC sancionó al ICAB y a otros ocho Colegios de Abogados por conductas prohibidas por el artículo 1 de la Ley 15/2007 de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC), consistentes en realizar recomendaciones de precios mediante la elaboración, publicación y difusión de baremos de honorarios (nota de prensa).
En febrero de 2020, la CNMC dictó una Resolución, como parte del procedimiento de vigilancia (VS/0587/16) del expediente de 2018, que declaró los criterios orientativos en tasación de costas presentados por el ICAB (noviembre de 2019) como adecuados para cumplir los compromisos de la Resolución 2018.
Incoación de un sancionador
En mayo de 2024, en el marco de las citadas actuaciones de vigilancia, el Consejo de la CNMC interesó a la Dirección de Competencia a iniciar un expediente sancionador contra el ICAB por existir indicios de incumplimientos.
Concretamente, el ICAB habría difundido los criterios orientativos para la tasación de costas aprobados en la Resolución de 2020 —transformando las indicaciones genéricas contenidas en los mismos en porcentajes concretos y, en definitiva, en baremos o listados de precios aplicados automáticamente— entre más de 4.000 abogados del ICAB, además de entre profesionales colegiados de otras demarcaciones territoriales.
La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un periodo máximo de tres meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución por la CNMC.
The CMA investigated the anticipated acquisition by T&L Sugars Limited of the UK packing and distribution site and business-to-consumer activities of Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited from Tereos SCA.
Wiz Co Participações e Corretagem de Seguros S.A.; BMG CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LTDA.
A presente operação consiste na aquisição, pela WIZ CO PARTICIPAÇÕES E CORRETAGEM DE SEGUROS S.A. (“WIZ”), de quotas representativas de 9% do capital social da BMG CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LTDA. (“BMG Corretora”), atualmente detidas pelo BMG SEGURIDADE S.A. Atualmente, a WIZ detém 40% do capital social da BMG Corretora e, ao final, passará a deter 49% do capital social.
Aquisição de quotas/ações sem aquisição de controle
66.22-3-00 Corretores e agentes de seguros, de planos de previdência complementar e de saúde.
Betfair Brasil Holdings Ltda.; NSX Enterprise N.V.
Este Ato de Concentração trata da combinação de negócios entre as atividades no Brasil de Betfair Brasil Holdings Ltda., uma subsidiária integral indiretamente detida pela Flutter Entertainment plc e NSX Enterprise N.V.
Enauta Energia S.A.; ExxonMobil Exploração Brasil Ltda.
A operação consiste na cessão, para a Enauta Energia S.A., da participação de 50% da ExxonMobil Exploração Brasil Ltda. detida nas concessões de cada um dos Blocos: (i) SEAL-M-351; (ii) SEAL-M-428; (iii) SEAL-M-430; (iv) SEAL-M-501; (v) SEAL-M-503; (vi) SEAL-M-505; (vii) SEAL-M-573; e (viii) SEAL-M-575 localizados na Bacia de Sergipe-Alagoas, além dos direitos e obrigações previstos nos respectivos Contratos de Concessão para Exploração e Produção de Petróleo e Gás Natural.
Outra forma de operação não coberta pelas alternativas anteriores
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).
Resumo
O destaque da concorrência pelo mundo na última quarta-feira (25.09) foi a realização da 236ª Sessão de Julgamento do CADE, cuja pauta continha três atos de concentração, um processo de apuração de atos de concentração – APAC; e três processos administrativos de condutas anticompetitivas.
No que se refere aos processos administrativos de condutas anticompetitivas julgadas pelo Tribunal, destaque deve ser dado a condenação da Federação Brasileira das Cooperativas de Especialidades Médicas – FEBRACEM por adotar práticas abusivas (Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002124/2016-10), como recusa de prestação de serviços médicos, ameaças de paralisação, boicotes e criação de barreiras para impedir a entrada de novos profissionais no mercado. Importante salientar que a SG, a Procuradoria Federal junto ao CADE – PROCADE e o MPF já haviam condenado a Febracem em suas manifestações.
Vale destacar também que o CADE condenou todos os participantes do cartel no mercado de fornecimento de materiais gráficos realizada por órgãos municipais do Rio Grande do Norte (Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003826/2015-30). Nesse caso, também, a SG, ProCADE e MPF foram uníssonos na condenação detodos os representadospela infração à ordem econômica mencionada.
Em relação aos atos de concentração, os destaques ficaram por conta do julgamento das operações Minerva/Marfrig (ato de concentração nº 08700.006814/2023-77) e Plurix/Paraná Supermercados (ato de concentração nº 08700.000711/2024-84).
Na primeira operação, o CADE determinou que a Minerva aliene a planta de abate e desossa de Pirenópolis/GO e tornou sem efeito a cláusula de expansão no acordo de não concorrência, na qual a Marfrig ficava obrigada a não fazer a expansão da sua planta de abate e desossa de Várzea Grande/MT no estado do Mato Grosso.
A operação em que a Plurix adquiriu 85% das ações do Paraná Supermercados, operação que havia sido aprovada pela Superintendência-Geral do CADE – SG e avocada pelo tribunal, foi aprovada por unanimidade pelo plenário do CADE. A operação não trouxe qualquer problema de natureza concorrencial, mas, apesar disso, ela foi utilizada pelo conselheiro-relator como exemplo para que futuras aquisições sequenciais em qualquer que seja o setor sejam analisadas com parcimônia pela autoridade de defesa da concorrência do Brasil, sobretudo aquisições que vem a ocorrer no mercado de supermercados no norte do estado do Paraná.
Notícias
Cade aprova, com restrições, aquisição pela Minerva de ativos da Marfrig
Operação foi autorizada mediante adoção de remédios
Publicado em 25/09/2024 15h09 Atualizado em 25/09/2024 18h25
Na sessão de julgamento desta quarta-feira (25/9), o Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) aprovou, com restrições, a aquisição pela Minerva de parte do negócio de carne bovina e ovina da Marfrig. A operação, que envolve fábricas de abate e desossa e um centro de distribuição, localizadas no Brasil, Chile e Argentina, foi aprovada condicionada à adoção dos remédios unilateralmente impostos pelo Tribunal, dado que não houve celebração de Acordo de Controle em Concentrações.
Ao todo, a operação consiste na celebração de compra e venda de 11 unidades de abate e desossa de bovinos no Brasil nos estados do Rio Grande do Sul, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Goiás, Rondônia e São Paulo, além de uma unidade na Argentina e outra no Chile.
O conselheiro Carlos Jacques, relator do caso, apontou duas preocupações concorrenciais: a supressão do limite de expansão da planta industrial em Várzea Grande, no Mato Grosso, e a alienação da planta de Pirenópolis, em Goiás.
Ainda de acordo com o relator, a aplicação de remédios unilaterais, nesse caso, é a alternativa mais adequada e proporcional para garantir a preservação de um ambiente competitivo equilibrado, sendo suficiente para mitigar os riscos associados à concentração de mercado e prevenir a formação de posições dominantes, já que o mercado de abate e desossa de bovinos estavam entre as preocupações levantadas pelo conselheiro relator.
Remédios
As obrigações impostas às representadas visam mitigar as preocupações concorrenciais identificadas, sugerindo a aprovação da operação condicionada ao cumprimento dos remédios.
Dessa forma, o relator adota a sugestão da SG/Cade sobre o ajuste na cláusula de não-competição, propondo condições adicionais de maneira unilateral, dado que não houve a celebração de ACC no âmbito do Tribunal Administrativo.
Nesse sentido, a decisão do Tribunal determina que a Marfrig poderá aumentar sua capacidade de abate e desossa na fábrica de Várzea Grande, em Mato Grosso. A Minerva também deverá alienar a planta de Pirenópolis, em Goiás, antes detida pela Marfrig e objeto do Contrato de Compra e Venda. Essas ações deverão ser monitoradas de acordo com os procedimentos de fiscalização de comprimentos previsto em resolução do Cade.
As restrições à expansão do contrato se aplicam aos estados do Pará, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondônia, Mato Grosso do Sul e Goiás. No entanto, a restrição na planta de Várzea Grande, Mato Grosso, não é válida, mas outras regras de cumprimento no estado ainda são.
Cade aprova operação de venda de 85% da Paraná Supermercados para a Plurix
Tribunal concluiu que os elementos apurados não justificavam a reversão da decisão da Superintendência-Geral da autarquia
Publicado em 25/09/2024 18h11
Nesta quarta-feira (25/9), o Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) aprovou, sem restrições, a compra de 85% da Paraná Supermercados pela Plurix, empresa com atividades no mercado de varejo de autosserviço. O Ato de Concentração foi aprovado sem restrições pela Superintendência-Geral em maio deste ano, mas foi avocado pelo conselho Diogo Thomson, que também foi sorteado como relator do processo.
A operação é realizada pela empresa Plurix, que recebe investimentos do Fundo Pátria Private Equity VI, gerido pelo Pátria Investimentos. Atualmente, a empresa controla (direta e indiretamente) diversas empresas supermercadistas. Enquanto, a ‘Paraná Supermercados’ é o nome fantasia da Cia Paraná de Alimentos, que opera uma rede de varejo no estado do Paraná com lojas em municípios Campo Mourão, Ivaiporã, Goioerê, Pitanga e Assis Chateaubriand.
Em seu voto, o conselheiro relator Diogo Thomson se debruçou sobre dois aspectos do Ato de Concentração: os vetores de pressão competitiva e rivalidade nos municípios de Ivaiporã e Pitanga, em que a Superintendência-Geral identificou sobreposições horizontais relevantes, e uma possível estratégia de aquisições por parte do grupo econômico da empresa compradora na região do oeste dos estados de São Paulo e, principalmente, do Paraná.
Após a série de avaliações e análises quantitativas, o conselheiro entendeu que, ainda que determinados elementos tenham demonstrado limitações à rivalidade no mercado analisado, não há evidências com robustez suficiente para justificar uma reversão da decisão da Superintendência-Geral. No entanto, ele salientou a necessidade de acompanhamento de novas aquisições relacionadas ao grupo econômico da Plurix.
O conselheiro Diogo também destacou, em seu voto, a importância da utilização da avocação para o desenvolvimento de jurisprudência da autarquia, que “permite que o Tribunal amplie o seu acúmulo de conhecimento em relação a distintos objetos, abrindo espaço para que se trilhe um caminho mais amplo em direção ao aperfeiçoamento da política pública de defesa da concorrência”.
Cade condena cooperativas médicas do Espírito Santo por práticas anticompetitivas
Tribunal entendeu que as condutas abusivas prejudicaram o mercado e o consumidor final
Publicado em 25/09/2024 18h25
O Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) condenou, na sessão de julgamento desta quarta-feira (25/9), a Federação Brasileira das Cooperativas de Especialidades Médicas (Febracem) e diversas cooperativas médicas do estado do Espírito Santo, além de quatro pessoas físicas por coordenarem ações anticompetitivas que manipulavam o mercado de serviços médicos no ente federativo.
A denúncia foi apresentada pela Associação Evangélica Beneficente Espírito Santense (Aebes), que alegou que a Febracem e as cooperativas usaram sua posição dominante para impor condições comerciais prejudiciais, controlando cerca de 75% dos atendimentos de urgência e emergência do estado.
As investigações revelaram que as cooperativas, sob a liderança da Febracem, adotaram práticas abusivas, como recusa de prestação de serviços médicos, ameaças de paralisação, boicotes e criação de barreiras para impedir a entrada de novos profissionais no mercado. Essas táticas visavam aumentar o poder de barganha nas negociações com o governo do Espírito Santo, especialmente com a Secretaria de Estado de Saúde.
Além disso, o caso envolveu a participação de entidades como o Conselho Regional de Medicina do Espírito Santo (CRM-ES) e a Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia (SBN), acusadas de assediar médicos não afiliados às cooperativas.
De acordo com o conselheiro Gustavo Augusto, relator do caso, a investigação encontrou evidências de coordenação entre as entidades para limitar a concorrência no mercado de serviços médicos. Apesar de já terem sido alvo de investigações anteriores pelo Cade, que resultaram em condenações e Termos de Compromisso de Cessação (TCCs), as práticas anticompetitivas persistiram sob o amparo da Febracem.
Como resultado do processo, foram impostas diversas penalidades. A Febracem foi multada em quase R$ 4 milhões, além de ficar proibida de representar cooperativas médicas ou celebrar contratos com o poder público pelo prazo de cinco anos. As cooperativas, por sua vez, receberam multas que variaram entre R$ 1,7 milhão e R$ 14,5 milhões. As pessoas físicas envolvidas foram multadas entre R$ 27.409,37 e R$ 396.802,89. Ao todo, as multas aplicadas somam mais de R$ 40 milhões. Além das multas, as entidades condenadas deverão publicar um extrato da condenação em seus sites por 30 dias e enviá-lo a seus cooperados, sob pena de multas diárias de R$ 50 mil para as entidades e R$ 10 mil para os indivíduos.
Cade condena participantes por cartel em licitações públicas no Rio Grande do Norte
Ao todo, 10 empresas e quatro pessoas físicas pagarão multa por participarem de cartel no mercado de fornecimento de materiais gráficos
Publicado em 25/09/2024 18h06
Nesta quarta-feira (25/9), o Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade), condenou 10 empresas e quatro pessoas físicas por prática de cartel em licitações realizadas por prefeituras do Rio Grande do Norte (RN) para contratação de materiais gráficos. O Tribunal Administrativo determinou que os envolvidos deverão pagar mais de R$1 milhão em multa por prática anticoncorrencial.
A investigação teve início em setembro de 2016, a partir de representação encaminhada pelo Ministério Público do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, com extenso material apreendido na Operação Sangria, de busca e apreensão, realizada no município de Caraúbas (RN).
Pela análise da documentação apreendida, a Superintendência- Geral do Cade concluiu que o cartel atuou entre 2012 e 2014 e consistiu em acordos entre concorrentes para fixação de preços, condições, vantagens e divisão de mercado, por meio de elaboração conjunta de propostas de preços, compartilhamento de documentos e de informações concorrencialmente sensíveis. Também ficou demonstrada a atuação coordenada durante pregões eletrônicos, a fim de frustrar o caráter competitivo das licitações realizadas pelas prefeituras.
A condenação por infração administrativa à ordem econômica segui os termos do artigo 36 da Lei nº 12.529/2011, com aplicação de multa, a ser paga no prazo de 30 dias, contados da publicação da decisão proferida pelo Tribunal Administrativo do Cade no Diário Oficial da União.
The CMA investigated the anticipated acquisition by T&L Sugars Limited of the UK packing and distribution site and business-to-consumer activities of Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited from Tereos SCA.
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
Justice Department Sues Visa for Monopolizing Debit Markets
Tuesday, September 24, 2024Share
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
Visa’s Exclusionary and Anticompetitive Conduct Undermines Choice and Innovation in Payments and Imposes Enormous Costs on Consumers, Merchants, and the American Economy
The Justice Department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today against Visa for monopolization and other unlawful conduct in debit network markets in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint alleges that Visa illegally maintains a monopoly over debit network markets by using its dominance to thwart the growth of its existing competitors and prevent others from developing new and innovative alternatives.
According to the complaint, more than 60% of debit transactions in the United States run on Visa’s debit network, allowing it to charge over $7 billion in fees each year for processing those transactions. The complaint further alleges that Visa illegally maintains its monopoly power by insulating itself from competition. For example, Visa wields its dominance, enormous scale, and centrality to the debit ecosystem to impose a web of exclusionary agreements on merchants and banks. These agreements penalize Visa’s customers who route transactions to a different debit network or alternative payment system. In so doing, the complaint alleges, Visa locks up debit volume, insulates itself from competition, and smothers smaller, lower-priced competitors. Visa also induces would-be competitors to become partners instead of entering the market as competitors by offering generous monetary incentives and threatening punitive additional fees. As the complaint alleges, Visa coopted the competition because it feared losing share, revenues, or being displaced by another debit network altogether.
“We allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a result, Visa’s unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing – but the price of nearly everything.”
Debit transactions are an important and popular part of the U.S. financial system. Millions of Americans prefer or must use debit for online and in-person purchases. Visa dominates debit network markets that facilitate these transactions, charging significant fees and stifling competition in the process. Visa’s systematic efforts to limit competition for debit transactions have resulted in billions of dollars in additional fees imposed on American consumers and businesses and slowed innovation in the debit payments ecosystem. Through this lawsuit, the Justice Department seeks to restore competition to this vital market on behalf of the American public.
“Anticompetitive conduct by corporations like Visa leaves the American people and our entire economy worse off,” said Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “Today’s action against Visa reminds those who would stifle competition rather than competing on price or investing in innovation that the Justice Department will never hesitate to enforce the law on behalf of the American people.”
“Visa fears competition and innovation, and instead chooses unlawful cooperation and monopolization,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Visa abuses its power over its customers and buys off would-be rivals at the expense of American consumers, merchants, banks, and the competitive process itself. Today’s lawsuit holds Visa accountable for its conduct in a market that forms the backbone of American commerce.”
Visa maintains enormous scale on both sides of the debit market — with merchants and their banks and with consumers and their banks — and the complaint alleges that Visa’s exclusionary practices extend, deepen, and protect what it refers to as an “enormous moat” around its business. When faced with the possibility that smaller debit networks or new technology entrants would threaten that position, Visa engaged in a deliberate and reinforcing course of conduct to cut off competition and prevent rivals from gaining the scale, share, and data necessary to compete for customers’ business:
Smaller Debit Networks: Visa uses leverage based on the large number of transactions that must run over Visa’s payment rails to impose expansive volume commitments on merchants and their banks, as well as on financial institutions that issue debit cards. These agreements are priced so that, unless all or nearly all debit volume runs over Visa’s payment rails, large disloyalty penalties can be imposed on all Visa transactions. Merchants cannot afford to use Visa’s smaller competitors for transactions where options do exist, even when those competitors offer lower per-transaction prices.
Tech Entrants: As Visa’s internal documents make clear, Visa feared that some technology companies and fintech startups with “network ambitions” would cut Visa out as the middleman between merchants, consumers, and their banks by offering a better or cheaper payment product. Visa aimed to stop that development by entering into agreements to pay potential competitors to partner instead of innovating. As Visa’s then-CFO put it: “Everybody is a friend and partner. Nobody is a competitor.”
In 2020, the Justice Department filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to stop Visa from acquiring Plaid, a technology company that powers fintech apps developing disruptive options for online debit payments. The companies abandoned their planned $5.3 billion merger.
Visa Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco. Visa has a global operating income of $18.8 billion and an operating margin of 64% in 2022. North America is among Visa’s most profitable regions with 2022 operating margins of 83%. Visa charges roughly $8 billion in network fees on U.S. debit volume annually. Globally, Visa processes $12.3 trillion in total payment volume.
Updated September 24, 2024
The role of competition in addressing inequality – Nuno Cunha Rodrigues
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues; Africa – EU Competition Week
The role of competition in addressing inequality – Nuno Cunha Rodrigues
A l’occasion de la publication par la CNIL de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte
Publié le 24 septembre 2024
A l’occasion de la publication par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu en décembre 2023 dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte.
Pour la première fois, l’Autorité de la concurrence avait en effet été saisie pour avis par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés sur son projet de recommandation relatives aux applications mobiles. Cette saisine concrétise les engagements pris par les deux institutions dans le cadre de leur déclaration conjointe signée en décembre 2023 et marque ainsi une nouvelle étape dans l’approfondissement de leurs relations.
L’objectif de la CNIL était, par cette consultation de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, de s’assurer que sa recommandation protège efficacement les données personnelles des utilisateurs sans, pour autant, porter atteinte à la concurrence, garante de l’innovation et de la diversité sur le marché des applications mobiles.
L’Autorité se réjouit de constater la prise en compte de ses préconisations par la CNIL dans ses recommandations finales pour concilier une protection effective des droits fondamentaux des utilisateurs avec un environnement concurrentiel dynamique dans le secteur des applications mobiles.
COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE DU 24 SEPTEMBRE
A l’occasion de la publication par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu en décembre 2023 dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte.
Document commun sur la coopération étroite entre la CNIL et l’Autorité de la concurrence sur les applications mobiles
Recommandation de la CNIL sur les applications mobiles : une coopération étroite avec l’Autorité de la concurrence pour concilier le respect de la vie privée et un environnement concurrentiel dynamique
Trata-se de operação mediante a qual a Sapore S.A. adquirirá quotas representativas de 100% (cem por cento) do capital social das Sociedades ELD EVENTOS LTDA. e EL DOURADO FEIRAS E EVENTOS LTDA., de forma que a Sapore deterá, (i) no fechamento, 60% (sessenta por cento) do capital social das Sociedades; e (ii) ao fim do exercício social de 2027, assumirá os 40% (quarenta por cento) remanescentes do capital social da Sociedades consolidando, assim, 100% (cem por cento) do capital social sob titularidade da Sapore.
A operação consiste, em síntese, na proposta de arrendamento total de direito minerário, pela Vale S.A. (“Vale”), à Vallourec Tubos do Brasil Ltda. (“Vallourec” e, em conjunto com a Vale, as “Partes”), referente a jazidas localizadas no Grupamento Mineiro da Mutuca.
CRESCERA GROWTH CAPITAL MASTER V FUNDO DE INVESTIMENTO EM PARTICIPACOES MULTIESTRATEGIA; Nava Serviços e Outsourcing Ltda.
A Operação consiste na entrada do Crescera Growth Capital Master V Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia (?FIP Crescera? ou ?Investidor?) no quadro de acionistas da Nava Serviços e Outsourcing Ltda. (?Nava Serviços? ou ?Empresa-Alvo? e, em conjunto com FIP Crescera, ?Requerentes?) e, indiretamente, de suas subsidiárias (?Subsidiárias? e, em conjunto com Nava Serviços, ?Nava?), mediante a subscrição e integralização de novas ações e aquisição de ações da Empresa-Alvo.
Aquisição de quotas/ações sem aquisição de controle
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).
Resumo
O mundo da concorrência desta terça-feira (24/09) está sendo movimentado pelo anúncio da Comissão Europeia a respeito da inspeção antitruste no setor de serviços financeiros, mais especificamente nos derivativos financeiros, e pela atualização da investigação da autoridade britânica da concorrência – CMA em relação as alterações do navegador ‘Privacy Sandbox’ realizadas pelo Google.
A preocupação da Comissão Europeia é a de que as empresas inspecionadas tenham violado as regras que proíbem a imposição de regras restritivas a negócios previstos no artigo 101 do Tratado de funcionamento da União Europeia e no artigo 53 do Acordo da Área Econômica Europeia. Inspeções desta natureza são adotadas pela Comissão quando suspeitam de práticas anticompetitivas.
A CMA continua a investigar os compromissos apresentados pelo Google no que concerne a decisão da big tech de eliminar os cookies e outras funcionalidades do navegador Chrome para terceiras partes. Esses compromissos foram aceitos pela autoridade britânica em 11 de fevereiro de 2022.
Também nesta terça-feira a autoridade francesa da concorrência – Autorité de la Concurrence publicou a sua satisfação com a recomendação final do órgão responsável pelo controle da internet e liberdades (Commission National de l’Informatique et libertés – CNIL), que incorporou a sugestão da autoridade da concorrência de conciliar a proteção efetiva dos direitos fundamentais dos utilizadores com um ambiente concorrencial dinâmico no setor das aplicações móveis.
Em termos de decisões de atos de concentração, vale destacar que a Superintendência-Geral do CADE aprovou sem restrições duas operações: ato de concentração nº 08700.006866/2024-24 (Rheinmetall AG, Carlyle Partners VII Prime Holdings LP, Prime Employee Holdings LLC, CP Prime Holdings GP L.L.C. e CP Prime Holdings L.P.) e ato de concentração nº 08700.006875/2024-15 (Supermercados BH Comércio de Alimentos S.A. e ABR Distribuidora de Alimentos Ltda..
Notícias
Commission carries out unannounced antitrust inspections in the financial services sector
The European Commission is carrying out unannounced antitrust inspections at the premises of companies active in the financial services sector in two Member States.
The Commission has concerns that the inspected companies may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit restrictive business practices (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) Agreement).
The products concerned by the inspections are financial derivatives.
The Commission officials are accompanied by their counterparts from the relevant national competition authorities of the Member States where the inspections are conducted.
Unannounced investigations are a preliminary investigatory step into suspected anticompetitive practices. The fact that the Commission carries out such inspections does not mean that the companies are guilty of anticompetitive behaviour nor does it prejudge the outcome of the investigation itself.
There is no legal deadline to complete inquiries into anticompetitive conduct. The duration of the investigation depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of each case, the extent to which the companies concerned cooperate with the Commission and the exercise of their rights of defence.
Investigation into Google’s ‘Privacy Sandbox’ browser changes
The CMA has accepted commitments offered by Google that address the CMA’s competition concerns resulting from investigating Google’s proposals to remove third-party cookies and other functionalities from its Chrome browser.
On 22 July 2024, Google announced that it is changing its approach to Privacy Sandbox. Instead of removing third-party cookies from Chrome, it will allow users to choose whether to retain third party cookies. The CMA invited stakeholders to share their initial views on Google’s revised approach, and possible implications for consumers and market outcomes, by 12 August 2024.
Based on careful consideration of the responses we received, the CMA’s view is that competition concerns remain under Google’s revised approach. The CMA wants to ensure that these changes are made in a way which supports continued competition in digital advertising.
The current commitments would need to be updated to reflect the evolution in Google’s planned Privacy Sandbox browser changes and the CMA is discussing with Google what changes would be required to address the CMA’s competition concerns. If the CMA is not able to agree changes to the commitments with Google which address the competition concerns, then the CMA will consider what further action may be necessary. The CMA will publicly consult before taking any decision on whether to accept changes to the commitments, and is aiming to do this in Q4 2024. The CMA also plans to provide an update at that time on its views relating to the Privacy Sandbox tools and its assessment of testing and trialling results.
The CMA will continue to work with the ICO to consider privacy and user choice design concerns in relation to Google’s revised approach.
Quarterly reports
Q1 2024
On 26 April 2024, the CMA published its latest update report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB) accepted by the CMA in February 2022. This report sets out the progress made to date, including the CMA’s latest views on the potential impact of Google’s proposed Privacy Sandbox changes.
It summarises stakeholder responses to the call for input following our Q4 2023 report and highlights areas where competition concerns remain. The report also incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q1 2024 report.
We’ve also published Google’s Q1 2024 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024.
Under the commitments, Google is required to report on the progress of the Privacy Sandbox proposals, updated timing expectations, its interactions with the CMA and third parties, including on the testing of proposals, as well as the approach taken to address concerns raised. We are publishing the full report to inform third parties of developments on the Privacy Sandbox and progress in implementing the commitments. The commitments put in place a framework within which Google will develop and test the Privacy Sandbox proposals.
We have a role in supervising Google to ensure that the Privacy Sandbox is developed in a way that benefits consumers. As part of this role, we have continued to engage with Google on the design and development of the proposals.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has been closely involved in this process, given that the aim is to ensure that both competition and privacy are protected.
Q4 2023
On January 31 2024, the CMA published its update report for Q4 2023 on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q4 2023 report.
We’ve also published Google’s Q4 2023 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2023.
On 26 October 2023, the CMA published its update report for Q3 2023 on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q3 2023 report.
We’ve also published Google’s Q3 2023 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023.
On 27 July 2023, the CMA published its update report for Q2 2023 on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q2 2023 report.
We’ve also published Google’s Q2 2023 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 April 2023 to 30 June 2023.
On 27 April 2023, the CMA published its update report for Q1 2023 on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q1 2023 report.
We also published Google’s Q1 2023 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023.
On 31 January 2023, the CMA published its update report for Q4 2022 on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q4 2022 report.
We also published Google’s Q4 2022 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022.
On 27 October 2022, the CMA published its Q3 2022 update report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB). The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q3 2022 report.
We also published Google’s Q3 2022 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 September 2022.
On 28 July 2022, the CMA published its first update report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB) accepted by the CMA in February 2022. The report incorporates the findings from the Monitoring Trustee’s Q2 2022 report.
We also published Google’s Q2 2022 report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA. The report covers the period from 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022.
On 16 May 2022, Google provided us with its first report on its compliance with the binding commitments accepted by the CMA (PDF, 141KB) on 11 February 2022. The report covers the period from 11 February 2022 to 11 May 2022.
We also received an initial report from ING Bank, the Monitoring Trustee, with its assessment of Google’s compliance with those provisions of the commitments which relate to Google’s use of data (paragraphs 25 to 27), non-discrimination (paragraphs 30 to 31) and (with respect to those provisions) anti-circumvention (paragraph 33).The report covers the period between 11 February 2022 and 16 May 2022.
ING Bank did not identify any reportable concerns to the CMA.
We are expecting to receive the future quarterly reports from Google and ING Bank to align with calendar quarters.
2022 case updates
In February 2022, the CMA accepted Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments (PDF, 141KB) to address its competition concerns resulting from its CA98 investigation into Google’s proposals to remove third-party cookies and other functionalities from its Chrome browser. These commitments involve the CMA working with Google on the design and assessment of the Privacy Sandbox proposals before a final decision is taken to remove third-party cookies from Chrome. This page includes updates on implementation of the commitments, including regular update reports from the CMA and Google, and other relevant information for market participants.
Note: Google’s Android Privacy Sandbox proposals do not fall within the scope of these commitments
Industry testing
On 26 October 2023, the CMA published additional guidance for ad techs, publishers, and advertisers intending to test the Privacy Sandbox tools. This guidance provides detail on how market participants should use Google’s planned testing modes in Chrome in order to generate results which are comparable and informative to our assessment.
On 29 June 2023, the CMA published a further guidance note to advise ad techs, publishers, and advertisers on how they can test the Privacy Sandbox tools in a way that would contribute to our assessment of Google’s technologies. We envisage most testing taking place between Q4 2023 and Q2 2024. The note provides details of two preferred approaches to testing, the metrics we would like to capture, and information market participants can submit to the CMA so we can understand results of testing. The note also describes how the CMA’s preferred testing approaches align with Google’s testing framework.
On 3 November 2022, the CMA published a note which sets out the framework on how quantitative testing might inform our assessment of Google’s Privacy Sandbox proposals. We will be working with Google to further develop the ideas in this note and to design experiments which Google can carry out itself. Under the commitments, Google has committed to being transparent in reporting the results of its tests. At the same time, we also want to encourage other market participants to get involved in testing.
On 26 September 2022, the CMA approved the appointment of S-RM Intelligence and Risk Consulting Limited by the Monitoring Trustee (ING Bank N.V.) as an independent Technical Expert to support the Monitoring Trustee in monitoring compliance with the following provisions of the binding commitments accepted by the CMA on 11 February 2022: Google’s use of data (paragraphs 25 to 27), non-discrimination (paragraphs 30 to 31) and (with respect to those provisions) anti-circumvention (paragraph 33). The role of the Technical Expert is to provide specialised knowledge to support the Monitoring Trustee, particularly in relation to monitoring of data flows, and understanding the possible impacts of the Privacy Sandbox changes on ad tech markets.
Appointment of Monitoring Trustee
On 23 March 2022, the CMA approved the appointment of ING Bank N.V. by Google as Monitoring Trustee to monitor compliance with those provisions of the binding commitments accepted by the CMA on 11 February 2022 which relate to Google’s use of data (paragraphs 25 to 27), non-discrimination (paragraphs 30 to 31) and (with respect to those provisions) anti-circumvention (paragraph 33).
ING Bank also has a role in engaging with interested stakeholders, where they have questions about the nature and scope of the parts of the commitments which it is supervising. ING Bank be reached via the following contacts:
CMA commitments decision published and case closure. Implementation of commitments commences
December 2021 to February 2022
CMA consideration of representations received in response to the consultation on modified commitments
26 November 2021 to 17 December 2021
Modified commitments consultation period
26 November 2021
Consultation opened on modified commitments proposed by Google
October to November 2021
CMA consideration of possible modifications to the commitments offered by Google
June to September 2021
CMA consideration of representations received in response to the consultation on commitments
11 June 2021 to 8 July 2021
Commitments consultation period
11 June 2021
Consultation opened on commitments proposed by Google
January 2021 to July 2021
Initial investigation: information gathering, including issue of formal or informal information requests. CMA analysis and review of information gathered
January 2021
Investigation opened
Change log
The following changes have been made to the case timetable since it was first published in January 2021:
Date of change
Reason for change
Change made to timetable
26 November 2021
The CMA is consulting on modified commitments offered by Google
Dates for modified commitments consultation period and estimated date for CMA’s consideration of representations received in response to the consultation on modified commitments
15 October 2021
Additional stage needed, to consider possible modifications to the commitments offered by Google
Estimated time needed for correspondence with Google about possible modifications to the commitments offered by Google
30 July 2021
Additional time needed to analyse representations
Estimated date for CMA’s consideration of representations received in response to the consultation on commitments
11 June 2021
The CMA is consulting on commitments offered by Google
Date for commitments consultation period and estimated date for CMA’s consideration of representations received in response to the consultation on commitments
Decision to accept binding commitments
On 11 February 2022, the CMA published its decision to accept commitments from Google in relation to its proposals to remove third-party cookies (TPCs) on Chrome and develop its Privacy Sandbox tools.
Formal acceptance of commitments by the CMA brought the investigation to an end, with no decision being made as to whether or not the Competition Act 1998 has been infringed.
On 26 November 2021, the CMA published a notice of intention to accept the modified commitments offered by Google and has invited representations from interested third parties on these modified commitments.
Please quote the case reference 50972 in all correspondence related to this matter. Any non-disclosure agreement a party may have in place with Google should not prevent them from responding to this consultation. Google has confirmed that it will not use any confidentiality provision with a party to prevent them from responding to this consultation.
As detailed more fully in the related notice, the modified commitments:
add obligations on Google regarding its transparency and consultation with third parties
put in place a more transparent process through which Google will develop and test the Privacy Sandbox Proposals
add commitments to address concerns about Google removing additional functionality or information before TPCs
provide for a mechanism for the CMA to monitor Google’s adherence to any resolutions reached under the commitments
clarify the internal limits on the data that Google is allowed to use for the purposes of targeting and measuring digital advertising
improve the approach to addressing concerns about the potential for Google self-preferencing
improve the provisions on reporting and compliance
provide for a longer duration for any commitments
Consultation on commitments
On 11 June 2021, the CMA published a notice of intention to accept the commitments offered by Google and has invited representations from interested third parties.
Any non-disclosure agreement a party may have in place with Google should not prevent them from responding to this consultation. Google has confirmed that it will not use any confidentiality provision with a party to prevent them from responding to this consultation.
The CMA is particularly interested to hear any views on whether the proposed commitments are sufficient to address the CMA’s competition concerns regarding:
unequal access to the functionality associated with user tracking
self-preferencing Google’s own ad tech providers and owned and operated ad inventory
imposition of unfair terms on Chrome’s web users
Case launch
On 7 January 2021, the CMA launched an investigation under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 into suspected breaches of competition law by Google. The investigation concerns Google’s proposals to remove third-party cookies (TPCs) on Chrome and replace TPCs functionality with a range of ‘Privacy Sandbox’ tools, while transferring key functionality to Chrome.
the investigation is under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998
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 party under investigation. Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections
the CMA will consider any representations it receives before any decision is taken as to whether competition law has in fact been infringed
further detail of the CMA’s procedures in Competition Act 1998 cases is available in CMA8
changes to the timing of original entries in the case timetable will be made where the estimated timing changes
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.
Published 8 January 2021 Last updated 24 September 2024 + show all updates
A l’occasion de la publication par la CNIL de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte
Publié le 24 septembre 2022
A l’occasion de la publication par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu en décembre 2023 dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte.
Pour la première fois, l’Autorité de la concurrence avait en effet été saisie pour avis par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés sur son projet de recommandation relatives aux applications mobiles. Cette saisine concrétise les engagements pris par les deux institutions dans le cadre de leur déclaration conjointe signée en décembre 2023 et marque ainsi une nouvelle étape dans l’approfondissement de leurs relations.
L’objectif de la CNIL était, par cette consultation de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, de s’assurer que sa recommandation protège efficacement les données personnelles des utilisateurs sans, pour autant, porter atteinte à la concurrence, garante de l’innovation et de la diversité sur le marché des applications mobiles.
L’Autorité se réjouit de constater la prise en compte de ses préconisations par la CNIL dans ses recommandations finales pour concilier une protection effective des droits fondamentaux des utilisateurs avec un environnement concurrentiel dynamique dans le secteur des applications mobiles.
COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE DU 24 SEPTEMBRE
A l’occasion de la publication par la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) de sa recommandation finale sur les applications mobiles, l’Autorité publie l’avis qu’elle lui avait rendu en décembre 2023 dans le cadre de la préparation de ce texte.
Document commun sur la coopération étroite entre la CNIL et l’Autorité de la concurrence sur les applications mobiles
Recommandation de la CNIL sur les applications mobiles : une coopération étroite avec l’Autorité de la concurrence pour concilier le respect de la vie privée et un environnement concurrentiel dynamique
A Regulação da Inteligência Artificial em Portugal – A Visão dos Reguladores – Nuno Cunha Rodrigues
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues; Associação para a Promoção e Defesa da Sociedade da Informação (APDSI); A Regulação da Inteligência Artificial em Portugal – A Visão dos Reguladores
Requerentes: Rheinmetall AG, Carlyle Partners VII Prime Holdings LP, Prime Employee Holdings LLC, CP Prime Holdings GP L.L.C. e CP Prime Holdings L.P. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006875/2024-15
Requerentes: Supermercados BH Comércio de Alimentos S.A. e ABR Distribuidora de Alimentos Ltda. Aprovação sem restrições.
Procedimento Administrativo para Apuração de Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008330/2022-81
Procedimento Administrativo para Apuração de Ato de Concentração nº 08700.008330/2022-81
Representante: Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica – Ex-officio
Representadas: Nexus Investimentos, Participações e Locações Ltda. (“Nexus”) e Servtec Investimentos e Participações Ltda. (“Servtec”).
Conselheiro-Relator: Diogo Thomson de Andrade
VERSÃO PÚBLICA
1. Trata-se de Procedimento Administrativo para Apuração de Ato de Concentração (“APAC”), instaurado em 05.04.2024 a partir do Despacho SG nº 301/2024 (SEI 1363859), com o objetivo de verificar a consumação, antes da apreciação do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (“Cade”), da operação notificada por meio do Ato de Concentração nº 08700.006742/2021-04, entre Nexus Investimentos, Participações e Locações Ltda. (“Nexus”) e Servtec Investimentos e Participações Ltda. (“Servtec”), conforme previsão do art. 88, §3º, da Lei nº 12.529/2011.
2. A notificação da operação ao Cade foi realizada espontaneamente em 03.12.2021 (SEI 0992441), sendo aprovada sem restrições no dia 21.12.2021, conforme Despacho SG nº 1887/2021 (SEI 1000002) nos termos do Parecer nº 563/2021 (SEI 0999999), cuja decisão transitou em julgado em 07.01.2022 (SEI 1006449).
3. A operação foi baseada em Term Sheet assinado em 10.11.2021, que previa proposta de dação em pagamento de ações correspondentes a 19,62% do capital social da Geradora Eólica Bons Ventos da Serra 2 S.A. (“BVSII”) que estavam em propriedade da Servtec. Essas ações foram repassadas à Nexus, que assumiu o controle exclusivo da BVSII.
4. Contudo, a partir de denúncia e conforme manifestação das próprias Representadas, verificou-se que a operação notificada ao Cade havia sido anteriormente formalizada no Instrumento Particular de Dação de Ações em Pagamento, Quitação e Outras Avenças, assinado em 30.11.2020, que subsidiou o exercício de direitos políticos pela Nexus, que elegeu um membro adicional para o Conselho de Administração da BVSII em 30.12.2020, ou seja, antes de qualquer aprovação por parte desta Autoridade de Defesa da Concorrência.
5. Em 05.09.2024, a Superintendência-Geral (“SG/Cade”) exarou o Despacho SG nº 1023/2024 (SEI 1439251), acolhendo as razões da Nota Técnica nº 14/2024 (SEI 1439227), no qual conclui-se que a operação consiste em ato de concentração de notificação obrigatória ao Cade, enquadrando-se na hipótese do artigo 1º, inciso I, da Resolução Cade nº 24/2019 (“atos de concentração notificados e consumados antes de apreciados pelo Cade, nos termos do § 3º do art. 88 da Lei nº 12.529/2011”), pois sua notificação ocorreu após a consumação.
6. Assim, de acordo com os arts. 4º, I e 7º, parágrafo único, da Resolução nº 24/2019, a SG/Cade encaminhou o presente APAC ao Tribunal Administrativo deste Conselho para julgamento.
7. Em 09.09.2024, este APAC foi distribuído à minha relatoria por meio de sorteio realizado na 314ª Sessão Ordinária de Distribuição (SEI 1441977), cuja ata foi publicada no Diário Oficial da União em 11.09.2024 (SEI 1442712).
8. Feitas as considerações acima, e após detido exame dos autos, entendo que o presente processo está devidamente saneado, não havendo necessidade de diligências adicionais ou de instruções complementares nesta fase processual.
9. Nesse contexto, concedo às Representadas o prazo de 10 (dez) dias corridos, a partir da publicação desta decisão no DOU, para se manifestarem acerca de pontos que eventualmente entendam que ainda restam controvertidos e/ou para prestarem os esclarecimentos que entenderem necessários, especialmente em relação ao conteúdo da Nota Técnica nº 14/2024 (SEI 1439227).
10. Por oportuno, as partes poderão, no mesmo prazo, indicar se têm interesse na apresentação de uma proposta de acordo, em caso de eventual juízo de condenação pelo Tribunal do Cade.
11. Submeto o presente despacho à homologação do Tribunal, ad referendum.
The CMA is investigating the anticipated acquisition by XSYS Germany Holding GmbH of certain entities and assets comprising the MacDermid Graphics Solutions business.
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
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
Competition law court proceedings: serving documents on the CMA
Information for parties involved in competition law private actions, and their advisers, on documents to be served on the CMA.
Court rules require parties in cases that raise issues relating to the main European Union and UK competition laws to serve certain documents on the CMA. This information outlines how parties to such court proceedings should serve the relevant documents.
Updates to this page
Published 17 November 2015 Last updated 20 September 2024 + show all updates
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.
Investigation continuing: including further evidence gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
October 2023 to July 2024
Initial investigation: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
October 2023
Investigation opened
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.
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.
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:
A operação consiste na aquisição do controle unitário da Valenz Holding AG (Valenz ou Empresa-Alvo) e sua subsidiária pela Proman AG (Proman ou Compradora e, juntamente com a Empresa-Alvo, Partes ou Requerentes) (Operação). Atualmente, o controle da Empresa-Alvo é compartilhado entre Proman e MFH Holding GesmbH (MFH), empresa controlada pela Helm AG (HELM).
Aquisição de controle
4684-2/99 – Comércio Atacadista de Outros Produtos Químicos e Petroquímicos Não Especificados Anteriormente
Salus – Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia; Renova Energia S.A. – Em recuperação judicial
A operação proposta consiste em cessão recíproca de contratos de arrendamento e de direito de uso entre Salus Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia e Renova Energia S.A. em Recuperação Judicial. Os Contratos de Arrendamento e de Direitos de Uso envolvem projetos relativos à geração de energia eólica e estão localizados na Região Nordeste do Brasil.
Aquisição de ativos
64.62-0-00 – Holdings de instituições não-financeiras; 28.29-1-99 – Fabricação de outras máquinas e equipamentos de uso geral não especificados anteriormente, peças e acessórios; 35.13-1-00 – Comércio atacadista de energia elétrica; 42.21-9-02 – Construção de estações e redes de distribuição de energia elétrica; 43.22-3-01 – Instalações hidráulicas, sanitárias e de gás; 46.69-9-99 – Comércio atacadista de outras máquinas e equipamentos não especificados anteriormente; partes e peças; 47.89-0-99 – Comércio varejista de outros produtos não especificados anteriormente; 70.20-4-00 – Atividades de consultoria em gestão empresarial, exceto consultoria técnica específica; 71.12-0-00 – Serviços de engenharia; 77.39-0-99 – Aluguel de outras máquinas e equipamentos comerciais e industriais não especificados anteriormente, sem operador; 77.40-3-00 – Gestão de ativos intangíveis não-financeiros.
Zamp III S.A.; Subway International Franchise Holdings, LLC
Nos termos do Acordo de Desenvolvimento de Franquia Master (Master Franchise Development Agreement, o “Contrato?), a SUBWAY, master franqueada da marca SUBWAY e a responsável pelo gerenciamento e operação dos restaurantes do sistema de franquias SUBWAY no Brasil, licenciará os direitos de gerenciamento e operação dos restaurantes SUBWAY para a Zamp III.
Outra forma de operação não coberta pelas alternativas anteriores
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
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
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.
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.
Investigation continuing: including further evidence gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
October 2023 to July 2024
Initial investigation: including information gathering, analysis and review of information gathered
October 2023
Investigation opened
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Requerentes: ESAB Indústria e Comércio Ltda., The ESAB Group Inc., Sumig Soluções para Solda e Corte Ltda. e Sumig USA Corporation. Aprovação sem restrições.
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.
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.
TERÊ FRUTAS COMÉRCIO DE ALIMENTOS E PANIFICAÇÃO LTDA.; Companhia Brasileira de Distribuição
A operação consiste na aquisição, pela Terê Frutas Comércio de Alimentos e Panificação Ltda., de um ponto comercial da Companhia Brasileira de Distribuição, localizado no município de Magé/RJ
Aquisição de ativos
Comércio varejista de mercadorias em geral, com predominância de produtos alimentícios – hipermercados e supermercados (CNAE 47.11 3)
MOITINHO AUTOMÓVEIS LTDA.; RODOBENS COMÉRCIO E LOCAÇÃO DE VEÍCULOS LTDA.
A presente notificação diz respeito à proposta de aquisição, pela Moitinho Automóveis Ltda , de ativos tangíveis e intangíveis relacionados à operação das concessionárias Toyota Barra da Tijuca e Recreio dos Bandeirantes, atualmente detidos pela Rodobens Comércio e Locação de Veículos Ltda.
Aquisição de ativos
45.11-1-01 – Comércio a varejo de automóveis, camionetas e utilitários novos; 45.20-0-01 – Serviços de manutenção e reparação mecânica de veículos automotores; 45.20-0-02 – Serviços de lanternagem ou funilaria e pintura de veículos automotores;.30-7-03 – Comércio a varejo de peças e acessórios novos para veículos automotores; 74.90-1-04 – Atividades de intermediação e agenciamento de serviços e negócios em geral, exceto imobiliários; 77.11-0-00 – Locação de automóveis sem condutor.
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
PAUTA DA 236ª SESSÃO ORDINÁRIA DE JULGAMENTO
A SER REALIZADA EM 25 DE SETEMBRO DE 2024
Dia: 25/09/2024
Hora: 10 horas
Nos termos do art. 60, parágrafo único c/c arts. 75, §1º e 76, §4º do Regimento Interno do Cade, e com fundamento no Despacho da Presidência nº 75/2024 (SEI 1445065 ), a Sessão de Julgamento será realizada por meio remoto, com transmissão em tempo real pelo sítio eletrônico www.cade.gov.br e pelo canal do Cade no Youtube (https://bit.ly/39SsiVg).
Eventual pedido de sustentação oral deverá ser formalizado pelo e-mail cgp@cade.gov.br ou pelo número de WhatsApp +55 (61) 99939-6256 até 24 horas antes do início da sessão virtual. No mesmo prazo o advogado deverá enviar o arquivo de mídia à Secretaria do Plenário, em conformidade com o art. 81, §§ 5º e 6º do Regimento Interno.
Com relação aos requerimentos de ordem, nos termos do art. 81, § 5º do Regimento Interno do Cade, fica garantido o acesso de advogado constituído nos autos, para participação ativa a qualquer momento, durante o julgamento. A solicitação deverá ser encaminhada à Secretaria do Plenário, pelo e-mail cgp@cade.gov.br ou pelo número de WhatsApp +55 (61) 99939-6256, que informará sobre o procedimento a ser adotado.
O advogado deverá se responsabilizar pela qualidade do arquivo de mídia encaminhado, bem como pela adequação do ambiente escolhido para participação na sessão em tempo real.
A sustentação oral ou o requerimento de ordem também poderão ser realizados por meio de equipamento eletrônico disponível nas instalações do Cade.
1. Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000711/2024-84
Requerentes: SMR Participações e Investimentos S.A e CIA Paraná de Alimentos S.A.
Advogados: Ademir Antonio Pereira Jr., Yan Villela Vieira, Bruna Luiza Prinet de Morais e outros.
Relator: Diogo Thomson de Andrade.
2. Ato de Concentração nº 08700.004023/2024-93
Requerentes: 3R Petroleum Offshore S.A. e Consórcio Papa-Terra.
Advogados: Maria Eugênia Novis, João Felipe Achcar de Azambuja e Vitor Scavone Damasio.
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.
Advogados: Roberto Lincoln de Sousa Gomes Júnior, Luiz Augusto Azevedo de Almeida Hoffmann, Flavia Regina Ribeiro da Silva Villa, Alexandre de Aguiar Cezimbra, Gustavo Marioti Barros de Melo, Victor Santos Rufino, Victor Cavalcanti Couto e Victoria de Almeida Richa, Carlos Bastide Horbach, Carolina Carvalhais Vieira de Melo, e outros.
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.
Advogados: Ivens Henrique Hübert, Paulo Leonardo Casagrande, Andrea da Cunha Cruz, Caroline Guyt França.
Relator: Diogo Thomson de Andrade.
5. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.001164/2018-14
Representante: Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica ex-officio.
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.
Advogados: Joyce Honda, Daniel Victor da Silva Ferreira, Jamily Schlickmann, José Vlademir Meister, Cleverson Marinho Teixeira, Carlos Magalhães, George Filgueira, Marcelo Cama Proença Fernandes, Cristiane Sartori Gattiboni, Débora Gattiboni Lopes, Marcela Mattiuzzo e Ana Mallard Velloso, Felipe Fernandes Reis e outros.
Relator: Conselheiro Victor Oliveira Fernandes.
6. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002124/2016-10
Advogados: Renan Sales Vanderlei e Thiago Carvalho De Oliveira.
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.
Advogados: Alexandre de Souza Machado, Eliomar Bufon Lube, Denise Chachamovitz Leao de Salles, Vitor Luis Pereira Jorge, Ricardo Barros Brum, Paulo Henrique Cunha da Silva, Wilson Knoner Campos, Fernando Godoi Wanderley, Pablo Luiz Rosa Oliveira, Magda Maria Barreto, Dianna Borges Rodrigues, Josiane Faustino Pianca, Denise Chachamovitz Leao de Salles, Vitor Luis Pereira Jorge, Ricardo Barros Brum, Luiz Telvio Valim, Rayanny Cristiny Bertholdo Soares, Winicios Damm Lourenco, Alexandre de Lacerda Rossoni, Claudia Ferreira Garcia, Dyego Penha Frasson, Renan Sales Vanderlei, Thiago Carvalho de Oliveira e outros.
Relator: Conselheiro Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima.
7. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002160/2018-45
Representante: Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica ex-officio.
Representados: Sindicato dos Transportadores Autônomos de Contêineres e Cargas em Geral de Itajaí e Região (Sintracon/SC).
Advogados: Dalírio Anselmo da Silva e André Bona da Silva.
Relator: 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.
Advogados: Adriano Gentil de Lima, Diego Meira de Souza, Francisco Raniere Batista de Araújo, Gilton Batista de Araújo Filho, Isaac Samuel do Carmo, Leylane Cristina Barros Pereira, Mariana Rosado de Miranda, Ravardierison Cardoso de Noronha e Reovan Brito Cabral da Nóbrega.
The Justice Department announced today its withdrawal from the 1995 Bank Merger Guidelines and emphasized that the 2023 Merger Guidelines remain its sole and authoritative statement across all industries.
September 17, 2024
FTC Statement Regarding WillScot’s Decision to Abandon Proposed $3.8 Billion Acquisition of Competitor McGrath RentCorp
Phoenix, Arizona-based WillScot Holdings Corporation (WillScot) today announced that it is abandoning its proposed acquisition of McGrath RentCorp (McGrath). Under the merger agreement, which the companies publicly disclosed on January 29, 2024, WillScot agreed to acquire McGrath, a leading business-to-business rental company based in Livermore, California, for $3.8 billion. WillScot and McGrath are two of the largest modular and portable storage rental companies nationally and in many local markets throughout the United States.
On February 22, 2024, McGrath announced that both it and WillScot had received second requests for additional information from the FTC in connection with the agency’s review of the proposed acquisition.
In response to WillScot’s decision to abandon the merger, FTC Bureau of Competition Director Henry Liu issued the following statement:
“Strong competition in the markets for modular and portable storage solutions is essential to ensuring low prices and high levels of product quality and customer service for businesses and school districts nationwide. The FTC is pleased that WillScot has announced that it is terminating its proposed deal to acquire McGrath RentCorp in the face of a potential Commission challenge. FTC staff worked tirelessly to investigate the potential impacts of the proposed acquisition and found that customers in the construction, retail, education, and many other industries will benefit from continued competition between these two companies in markets across the country.”
Today, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Ryan Cohen, managing partner of RC Ventures, LLC, and Chairman and CEO of GameStop Corp., will pay a $985,320 civil penalty to settle charges that his acquisition of Wells Fargo & Company (Wells Fargo) shares violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.
According to the complaint, Cohen, who is also the founder and former CEO of Chewy, Inc., acquired more than 562,000 Wells Fargo voting securities resulting in aggregated holdings of Wells Fargo securities that exceeded HSR filing thresholds. Cohen’s purchase triggered an obligation to file an HSR form with federal antitrust agencies and wait before completing the acquisition. Yet Cohen failed to do so, which violated the HSR Act, according to the complaint.
The HSR Act requires companies and individuals to report large transactions, including securities acquisitions, over a certain threshold to the FTC and DOJ so that the federal agencies can investigate the deals before they close. The agencies have 30 days after a transaction has been reported to conduct an initial investigation and file a “second request” demand for additional information. It is generally illegal to finalize an acquisition during this investigatory period. The maximum civil penalty for an HSR violation at the time Cohen made the corrective filing was currently $43,792 per day.
According to the complaint, Cohen’s acquisition of Wells Fargo voting securities was not exempt under the Investment-Only Exemption of the HSR Act, even though his holding represented less than 10 percent of the outstanding voting securities of Wells Fargo.
When acquiring the Wells Fargo shares Cohen intended to influence Wells Fargo’s business decisions as evidenced by Cohen’s emails when he advocated for a board seat. After acquiring the shares, Cohen proceeded to have periodic communications with Wells Fargo’s leadership regarding suggestions to improve Wells Fargo’s business and to advocate for a potential board seat, according to the complaint.
The Commission vote to accept the settlement and refer the matter to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The Department of Justice filed the complaint and proposed stipulated order on the FTC’s behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with a competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period to Maribeth Petrizzi, Special Attorney, United States, c/o Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580 bccompliance@ftc.gov. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may approve the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.
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.
Avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de Cassation – L’Autorité de la concurrence lance une consultation publique
Publié le 19 septembre 2024
L’Autorité lance aujourd’hui la procédure prévue à l’article L. 462-4-2 du Code de commerce en vue d’élaborer un nouvel avis sur la liberté d’installation des avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation et réviser ses recommandations en matière de création d’offices.
L’Autorité de la concurrence encourage les collaborateurs des avocats aux Conseils ainsi que les étudiants en cours de formation à l’IFRAC à répondre à la présente consultation.
Afin de contribuer à l’avis de l’Autorité et aux recommandations qui y seront associées, les acteurs concernés sont invités à répondre au questionnaire accessible en ligne en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous avant le 19 octobre 2024.
Communiqué de presse du 19 septembre
Avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de Cassation – L’Autorité de la concurrence lance une consultation publique en vue de préparer un nouvel avis relatif à la liberté d’installation de ces professionnels
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.
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.
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
Justice Department Withdraws from 1995 Bank Merger Guidelines
Tuesday, September 17, 2024Share
For Immediate Release
Office of Public Affairs
The Justice Department announced today its withdrawal from the 1995 Bank Merger Guidelines and emphasized that the 2023 Merger Guidelines remain its sole and authoritative statement across all industries.
The department today also released commentary explaining the application of the 2023 Merger Guidelines in banking. This commentary identifies competition issues that may commonly occur in bank mergers and outlines which guidelines best inform analysis of those issues. As with the 2023 Merger Guidelines, this commentary offers transparency into the department’s merger review process but does not create rights or obligations of any party under the laws governing mergers of banks and bank holding companies.
The announcement today was the result of a collaborative consultative process with the department’s close partners at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The announcement was also informed by robust public feedback, department experience and expertise, as well as developments in the market, law and economics.
Neither the 2024 Banking Addendum nor the 2023 Merger Guidelines predetermine enforcement action by the department. Although the 2023 Merger Guidelines identify the factors and frameworks the department considers when investigating mergers, the department’s enforcement decisions will necessarily depend on the facts in any case and will continue to require prosecutorial discretion and judgment.
Throughout any bank merger review, the Justice Department works closely with the relevant bank regulators to ensure the complementary and consistent application of the laws within each agency’s area of expertise. As is always the case, those agencies may at their discretion use their own methods for screening and evaluating bank mergers.
Updated September 17, 2024
Statement by the Secretary General at a regular press conference (September 11, 2024)
September 11, 2024 Japan Fair Trade Commission
Today, I would like to explain the following matters: (1) Establishment of a Chief Green Officer and (2) Request for Participation in a Web Questionnaire and Proactive Information Submission for the Market Study on Business Practices in the Food Supply Chain.
Establishment of a Chief Green Officer
The JFTC established a new position, Chief Green Officer, on August 1 this year. Throughout this summer, Japan once again experienced record-breaking heat waves across the country. The issue of climate change is not only a concern for Japan, but a challenge for humanity as a whole, and it is becoming increasingly urgent for the international community to step up its collective efforts to address this global problem.
The JFTC has published the “Guidelines Concerning the Activities of Enterprises, etc. Toward the Realization of a Green Society under the Antimonopoly Act” (the Green Guidelines), and has been conducting publicity activities for the Green Guidelines and consultations with enterprises and trade associations to encourage their efforts to become carbon neutral.
Additionally, through the Market Study Report on the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Services and the Market Study Report on the Recycling of Used Plastic Bottles, which were conducted over the past two years, we gathered insights into market conditions and made recommendations, etc., for the future. Furthermore, as introduced during the July press meeting, we actively engaged in international collaboration in this field, including presenting Japan’s initiatives at the Workshop on Sustainability of the International Competition Network (ICN).
To further accelerate these efforts, a Chief Green Officer has been established in the JFTC’s General Secretariat. The Chief Green Officer, established by a commission directive, will be responsible for collecting and analyzing information on business activities, technological trends, market trends, and developments by foreign competition authorities, etc., related to the realization of a Green Society— a society that balances environmental sustainability and economic growth. In addition, the Chief Green Officer will provide this information both within and outside the JFTC, conduct pre-consultations, assist in the appropriate handling of merger reviews related to the realization of a Green Society, and promote the Commission’s efforts in this area to external stakeholders.
On September 1 of this year, the position of Chief Green Officer was assigned to Mr. Suzuki, the Director of the Consultation and Guidance Office. Mr. Suzuki was responsible executive for the formulation of the Green Guidelines in March 2023 and the revision in April, 2024. He currently oversees the Consultation and Guidance Office, which handles inquiries from enterprises and other organizations regarding individual initiatives.
The JFTC will continue to actively and appropriately address the various initiatives of enterprises and other organizations aimed at realizing a Green Society.
Request for Participation in a Web Questionnaire and Proactive Information Submission for the Market Study on Business Practices in the Food Supply Chain
The JFTC decided to conduct a market study on business practices in transactions between food manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers within the food supply chain, from the perspective of abuse of superior bargaining position under the Antimonopoly Act. The study period covers one year, from September 2023 to August 2024. We will send out a request for cooperation in the web questionnaire to manufacturers and wholesalers on the 13th of this week.
For this market study, we would like to encourage a wide range of enterprises, including those not selected for the web questionnaire, to provide information. From the 13th of this week to the 25th of next month, the JFTC will set up an anonymous information submission form on its website, where enterprises can share information regarding business practices in the food supply chain. We strongly encourage those with relevant information to submit it through this form.
I would like to provide additional context regarding the background for conducting this market study. The JFTC has long held concerns regarding competition in food distribution. We conducted a market study on the distribution practices in the processed food industry in 1992, a market study on transactions between food manufacturers and wholesalers in 2011, and a Fact-Finding Survey on Transactions of Private Brand Products in the Food Sector in 2014. In this context, we had been receiving various concerns regarding business practices in the food supply chain related to competition. These voices and others led us to consider that certain industry-specific practices, such as the one-third rule for deliveries, may constitute problematic conduct from the perspective of abuse of superior bargaining position under the Antimonopoly Act.
Furthermore, concerns regarding competition in food distribution are being examined internationally. In December of this year, the OECD is scheduled to hold a roundtable on the theme of “Competition in the Food Supply Chain,” and similar discussions are taking place within the ICN. Taking these factors into consideration, we have decided to conduct this market study.
As for the conducts we are considering as potential issues in this market study, examples include those mentioned in the press release, such as unjust return of goods or refusal to accept goods by retailers. Specifically, there are concerns that retailers may unjustly refuse to accept deliveries on the grounds that the delivery deadline is approaching, based on the one-third rule, or that retailers may unjustly return unsold food to manufacturers or others.
If the study results identify any potentially problematic conduct, we plan to publicize the findings and widely disseminate them across the industry. Through this, we aim to promote fair transactions within the food supply chain and eliminate unjust burdens placed on food manufacturers and other stakeholders.
Based on the results of the web questionnaire, we plan to conduct interviews with retailers and aim to compile the findings by the end of 2024, if possible.
Requerentes: Phibro Animal Health Corporation e Zoetis Inc.
Advogados: Bruno Drago, Marco Antonio Fonseca e Otávio Cividanes.
Aprovação sem restrições
Processo nº 08700.002241/2024-93
Tipo de Processo: Procedimento Administrativo de Apuração de Ato de Concentração – APAC
Representante: Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica – Ex-officio.
Representadas: NovaAgri Infra-Estutura de Armazenagem e Escoamento Agrícola S.A., Valter Gatto, Valdir Gatto, Vilson Gatto, Clair Gatto, Roberto Gatto e Ruth Mara dos Santos Gatto.
Conselheiro Relator: Victor Oliveira Fernandes
1. Trata-se de Procedimento Administrativo para Apuração de Ato de Concentração (APAC), instaurado em 05/04/2024 a partir do Despacho SG nº 353/2024 (1366317), integrante do Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000692/2024-96 (“AC 692/2024” – NovaAgri Infra-Estutura de Armazenagem e Escoamento Agrícola S.A. e Irmãos Gatto), que foi submetido espontaneamente pelas Partes para avaliação do Cade em 31/01/2024. O procedimento tem como objetivo verificar a consumação da referida operação antes da aprovação pelo Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (“CADE”), conforme previsão do art. 88, §3º, da Lei nº 12.529/2011.
2. A operação tratou da aquisição, pelos Irmãos Gatto, de imóvel rural localizado no município de Luis Eduardo Magalhães, Bahia (“Ativo-Alvo”), onde a NovaAgri operava um armazém para granéis sólidos (“Operação”).
3. A notificação foi realizada espontaneamente pelas partes em 31/01/2024 (SEI 1341159) e o AC 692/2024 foi aprovado sem restrições no dia 01/03/2024, vide Despacho SG nº 228/2024 (1354766), nos termos do Parecer nº 92/2024 (1354747), com certidão de trânsito em julgado de 20/03/2024 (1363413).
4. Ocorre que, conforme se extrai das informações prestadas pelas partes, houve o pagamento antecipado do valor integral da operação antes da submissão da Operação ao CADE. O fato foi confirmado pelas partes tanto no formulário de notificação quanto na resposta ao Ofício nº 4309/2024 (SEI nº 1383871), enviado pela SG para coleta de informações adicionais. O comprovante do pagamento antecipado foi apresentado pelas partes no SEI 1388059, de acesso restrito.
5. Em 05/09/2024 a Superintendência-Geral (“SG/Cade”) exarou o Despacho SG nº 1026/2024 (1439518), acolhendo as razões da Nota Técnica nº 16/2024/SG-TRIAGEM AC/SGA1/SG/CADE (1439517), no qual conclui-se que o ato de concentração teria sido consumado antes da notificação e aprovação do CADE.
6. Em 09/09/2024, este APAC foi distribuído à minha relatoria por meio do sorteio realizado na 314ª Sessão Ordinária de Distribuição (1441973), cuja ata foi publicada no Diário Oficial da União em 11/09/2024 (1442707).
7. Feitas as considerações acima, e após detido exame dos autos, entendo que o presente processo está devidamente saneado, não havendo necessidade de diligências adicionais ou de instruções complementares nesta fase processual.
8. Nesse contexto, concedo às Representadas o prazo de 10 (dez) dias corridos, a partir da publicação desta decisão no DOU, para se manifestarem e fornecerem os esclarecimentos que julgarem necessários, especialmente em relação ao conteúdo da Nota Técnica nº 16/2024 (1439517).
9. Submeto o presente despacho à homologação do Tribunal, ad referendum.
Amil Assistência Médica Internacional S.A.; Diagnósticos da América S.A.
Operação referente ao Contrato de Associação e Outras Avenças consistente na combinação de ativos de hospitais e oncologia da Ímpar Serviços Hospitalares (“Ímpar”), atualmente subsidiária integral da Dasa, e de ativos relacionados a hospitais e clínicas oncológicas da Amil, por meio de aumento de capital social da Ímpar, a ser integralmente subscrito e integralizado pela Amil, mediante contribuição de ativos de sua propriedade relacionados essencialmente a hospitais e clínicas oncológicas.
SUPERMERCADOS BH COMÉRCIO DE ALIMENTOS S.A.; ABR DISTRIBUIDORA DE ALIMENTOS LTDA.
A operação se refere à aquisição, pela rede varejista SUPERMERCADOS BH COMÉRCIO DE ALIMENTOS S.A, de duas lojas (fundo de comércio) de comércio varejista de autosserviço ou autoatendimento, nos municípios de Vila Velha e Serra, ambas no Estado do Espírito Santo, incluindo estabelecimento (ponto comercial e instalações nos locais ? bens corpóreos e incorpóreos), detidas integralmente pela ABR DISTRIBUIDORA DE ALIMENTOS LTDA, dona da rede TOP MAIS ATACADO DISTRIBUIDOR.
A operação consiste na aquisição indireta pela Rheinmetall AG da Loc Performance Products, LLC por meio de uma aquisição pela American Rheinmetall Vehicles LLC de todas as quotas limitadas emitidas e em circulação da entidade controladora da Loc, a CP Prime Holdings, L.P. da Carlyle Partners VII Prime Holdings, L.P. e Prime Employee Holdings, LLC.
A operação proposta consiste no potencial aumento de capital social da Hidrovias do Brasil S.A (Empresa-Alvo)., com a subsequente subscrição, pela Ultrapar Logística Ltda (Compradora) de ações ordinárias da Empresa-Alvo, além de possível aquisição de ações da Empresa-Alvo em bolsa de valores pela Compradora.
64.62-0-00 – Holdings de instituições não-financeiras; 50.21-1-02 – Transporte por navegação interior de carga, intermunicipal, interestadual e internacional, exceto travessia.
José Ricardo Lemos Rezek; CPSB Patrimonial e Participações Ltda.; André Luis Vieira Azin; BRB – Banco de Brasília S.A.
A operação proposta trata da aquisição, direta ou indireta, por José Ricardo Lemos Rezek, CPSB Patrimonial e Participações Ltda. e André Luis Vieira Azin, de 49,9% das ações ordinárias representativas do capital social da BRB, Crédito, Financiamento e Investimento S.A., atualmente detidas pelo Banco BRB.
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
Arcor/Ingredion: la conformación de Ingrear fue subordinada al cumplimiento de medidas estructurales y conductuales
La CNDC y la Secretaría de Industria y Comercio resolvieron subordinar la autorización para la consolidación del negocio de molienda húmeda de maíz y la comercialización de sus derivados de Arcor e Ingredion al cumplimiento de un compromiso que establece medidas estructurales y conductuales.
16 de septiembre de 2024
La Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia (CNDC) emitió un dictamen en los términos del artículo 14, inc. b), de la Ley 27.442 de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC), recomendando a la Secretaría de Industria y Comercio subordinar la autorización para la conformación de Ingrear, un joint venture entre Arcor e Ingredion para el desarrollo de las actividades relacionadas con la molienda húmeda de maíz y la comercialización de productos derivados, al cumplimiento de un compromiso compuesto por siete medidas remediales.
Arcor es la matriz de un grupo empresarial argentino que desarrolla, a través de distintas subsidiarias y entidades relacionadas, tres divisiones de negocio: alimentos de consumo masivo, agronegocios, y envases de cartón corrugado (packaging). En lo que respecta a la producción y comercialización de alimentos, Arcor participa de la oferta de golosinas, chocolates, helados, mermeladas, conservas, aceite, bebidas, jugos en polvo, lácteos, galletitas, entre otros, que se venden bajo marcas de gran renombre y trayectoria en el mercado argentino, como La Campagnola, Bagley y La Serenísima. Asimismo, produce ciertos insumos que comercializa a terceros, o bien, utiliza para su propia elaboración de productos alimenticios de consumo masivo. Este es el caso de los productos que se derivan de la molienda húmeda de maíz, actividad para la cual cuenta con tres plantas, dos en la provincia de Córdoba, y una en la provincia de Tucumán.
Por su parte, Ingredion es la subsidiaria local de Ingredion Inc., un grupo multinacional estadounidense proveedor de ingredientes que produce principalmente almidón, almidones modificados y azúcares de almidón como jarabe de glucosa y jarabe con alto contenido de fructosa. En Argentina, se dedica a la producción y comercialización de ingredientes, especialmente en base a la molienda húmeda de maíz y sus derivados, actividad para la que cuenta con dos plantas en la provincia de Buenos Aires.
El joint venture entre los dos grupos económicos implica la consolidación en una unidad económica de la actividad de procesamiento industrial de maíz mediante el proceso de molienda húmeda, y la posterior comercialización de los siguientes productos derivados de dicho proceso industrial: jarabes, fructosa, dextrosa, almidones, aceites, gluten feed, gluten meal, germen, glucosa, maltodextrina y adhesivos, entre otros. Estos derivados se utilizan como insumos de las industrias de alimentos, bebidas, papel y farmacéutica.
En abril de 2022, la CNDC emitió un Informe de Objeción manifestando la potencialidad que tenía la operación para restringir o distorsionar la competencia en estos mercados.
Luego del analizar la operación, la CNDC concluyó que la transacción conlleva una reducción en el número de competidores independientes en los mercados de molienda húmeda de maíz y en la comercialización de sus derivados. Concretamente, la consolidación de dos de los principales productores en capacidad de molienda. Además, se verificaron posibles efectos verticales, toda vez que la creación del joint venture tendría la potencialidad de permitir la práctica de conductas exclusorias en relación con los competidores de Arcor en las industrias aguas abajo de producción y comercialización de alimentos y bebidas, en términos de cierres de mercado, aumento de costos, aumento de barreras a la entrada, entre otros.
Esto en virtud de que las empresas involucradas concentran de manera conjunta una parte significativa de la capacidad instalada en el mercado de molienda húmeda de maíz en el ámbito doméstico. En lo que respecta a los derivados del maíz, Arcor e Ingredion producen conjuntamente 26 productos, solapándose en 18 de ellos. Estos derivados se agrupan en tres categorías principales: endulzantes (como jarabe de fructosa y glucosa), almidones y coproductos (como germen y gluten). En el mercado de estos productos, la combinación de Arcor e Ingredion representa una porción considerable en cada categoría.
Luego de la emisión del Informe de Objeción, las partes presentaron un compromiso que implicaba obligaciones de conducta, el cual fue considerado insuficiente para neutralizar los riesgos derivados de la operación. Posteriormente, se ofrecieron nuevos compromisos, que incluyeron medidas estructurales y conductuales, con el objetivo de mitigar los riesgos unilaterales y coordinados de aumento de precios domésticos de los productos involucrados, así como los riesgos verticales de prácticas exclusorias en relación con los competidores de Arcor en las industrias aguas abajo. Luego del análisis de dichos compromisos y de información complementaria presentada por las partes, la CNDC concluyó que los remedios resultan adecuados y suficientes para neutralizar los riesgos derivados de la transacción.
Las medidas remediales comprendidas en los compromisos presentados son los siguientes:
Remedio 1: desinversión por un volumen de capacidad de producción de 350 tns/día de molienda húmeda de maíz, la cual consistirá en la venta de los equipos de molienda de la planta de Arcor “PMHI” ubicada en Arroyito.
Remedio 2: poner a disposición al costo, por un plazo de 5 años, un volumen de capacidad de producción equivalente a 200 tns/día de molienda húmeda para que sea adquirido y comercializado por uno o más competidores en el mercado de molienda húmeda de maíz mediante la modalidad de cesión de capacidad de producción.
Remedio 3: los precios de transferencia cobrados a Arcor deberán ser iguales o mayores a los precios que se les fijarán a los competidores de dicha empresa aguas abajo, de similar volumen para todos los productos comercializados por un plazo de, al menos, 5 años.
Remedio 4: las partes deberán cumplir con todos los pedidos de compra de competidores de Arcor siempre y cuando cuenten con stock suficiente para satisfacer tales pedidos, y/o capacidad técnica y operativa de abastecerlos, de modo tal que el nivel de servicios brindado a competidores será igual o mayor al nivel de servicios brindado a Arcor por un plazo de, al menos, 5 años.
Remedio 5: contratar a un tercero especialista en cuestiones de defensa de la competencia, e independiente de las partes, para desarrollar un programa de compliance de antitrust a disposición de la Cámara de Fabricantes de Almidones, Glucosa, Derivados y Afines (CAFAGDA) para garantizar que no existan riesgos de prácticas coordinadas en el seno de dicha institución.
Remedio 6: no contratar empleados y/o ejecutivos de los competidores por un período de, al menos, 3 años.
Remedio 7: realizar exportaciones por un volumen anual promedio no menor al equivalente a 550 tns/día de capacidad de producción (medidos en capacidad de molienda de maíz equivalente) durante un período de 5 años.
Particularmente, la implementación de la desinversión proyectada (remedio 1) y la cesión de capacidad de producción comprometidas (remedio 2) permitirán la entrada de un nuevo competidor, o bien favorecer la consolidación de alguno de los jugadores locales ya establecidos, en tanto equivale a un 12% de la capacidad instalada del sector, mitigando los riesgos horizontales identificados, así como los riesgos verticales y coordinados señalados.
Al mismo tiempo, la CNDC identificó que, producto del joint venture, se generarían ciertas ganancias de eficiencia que se constatarían en ahorros de costos y aumentos en la calidad, cantidad y variedad de productos disponibles. Los ahorros de costos se producirían en función de las sinergias relativas a la capacidad de innovación que surgen del conocimiento que aporta Arcor sobre las necesidades de los productos e ingredientes en los bienes de consumo masivo, en tanto que Ingredion aporta las capacidades de I+D en el desarrollo e información sobre ingredientes que brinda el acceso a la red global de laboratorios Idea Labs. Por su parte, las mejoras en la calidad, cantidad y variedad de productos incluyen el aumento en la disponibilidad de productos en el mercado local, y un incremento en la calidad y variedad en los nutrientes de los productos alimenticios
Conforme las mejores prácticas internacionales, la implementación de los remedios prevé la actuación de un auditor independiente como Agente de Monitoreo del cumplimiento de los compromisos, quien presentará ante la CNDC reportes de avance y cumplimiento de los remedios ofrecidos con una periodicidad semestral. Asimismo, la ejecución de los Remedios 1 y 2 se llevará a cabo mediante la participación de un tercero en el rol de Agente Vendedor de modo tal de evitar que el joint venture pueda tener contacto con competidores en el mercado.
Luego de analizar la concentración económica, la CNDC encontró que tal como fue notificada originalmente, la operación tenía la potencialidad de disminuir, restringir o distorsionar la competencia, pudiendo resultar en un perjuicio al interés económico general, infringiendo el artículo 8º de la LDC. Ahora bien, después de analizar las medidas remediales propuestas por las partes para morigerar dichos perjuicios, la CNDC recomendó al Secretario de Industria y Comercio subordinar la autorización de la operación al cumplimiento de los compromisos presentados.
The CMA is investigating the anticipated joint venture between Vodafone Group Plc and CK Hutchison Holdings Limited concerning Vodafone Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited.
Amil Assistência Médica Internacional S.A.; Diagnósticos da América S.A.
Operação referente ao Contrato de Associação e Outras Avenças consistente na combinação de ativos de hospitais e oncologia da Ímpar Serviços Hospitalares (“Ímpar”), atualmente subsidiária integral da Dasa, e de ativos relacionados a hospitais e clínicas oncológicas da Amil, por meio de aumento de capital social da Ímpar, a ser integralmente subscrito e integralizado pela Amil, mediante contribuição de ativos de sua propriedade relacionados essencialmente a hospitais e clínicas oncológicas.
Ordinário
16/09/2024
Gerenciar consentimento de cookies
Para fornecer as melhores experiências, usamos tecnologias como cookies para armazenar e/ou acessar informações do dispositivo. O consentimento com essas tecnologias nos permitirá processar dados como comportamento de navegação ou IDs exclusivos neste site. Não consentir ou retirar o consentimento pode afetar negativamente certos recursos e funções.
Functional
Sempre ativo
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferências
O armazenamento ou acesso técnico é necessário para o propósito legítimo de armazenar preferências que não são solicitadas pelo assinante ou usuário.
Statistics
O armazenamento ou acesso técnico que é usado exclusivamente para fins estatísticos.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
