|
Competitive Edge
Marco
Hickey reports on recent Competition Authority decisions dealing
with mergers, as well as a case taken against the Irish Medical
Organisation.
The Competition Authority has recently decided to block the proposed
acquisition by Kingspan Group Plc of Leanort Group on the grounds
that the transaction would substantially lessen competition in the
manufacture and provision of installation materials in the State.
The decision by the Competition Authority is very significant in
that it is only the second time that the authority has blocked a
merger since the coming into force of the mergers provisions of
the Competition Act 2002 (the Act) on 1 May 2003. The decision
by the Competition Authority to block the merger was made after
a full four-month phase 2 investigation. The Competition Authority's
written determination was expected to be delivered just as Update
went to press.
The first case in which the Competition Authority blocked a merger
under the Act was the proposed acquisition by IBM Ireland Limited
of the entire issued share capital of Schlumberger Business Continuity
Services (Ireland) Limited, in which the Competition Authority determined
that the result of the proposed acquisition would be to substantially
lessen competition in markets for goods or services in the State
on the basis of various factors, including that the parties were
the two largest providers of business recovery hotsite services
in the State, and that none of the potential sources of competitive
constraint were sufficient to constrain the merged group's ability
to increase prices.
The Competition Authority was notified of a transaction under the
Act whereby Topaz Energy Group Limited would acquire the entire
issued share capital of Statoil Ireland Limited. Topaz was the successful
bidder after the completion of a sale tender process. The Authority
conducted a very extensive phase 1 investigation, which included
the following:
- the issuing of formal requests for information to both Topaz
and Statoil,
- the assessment of third-party submissions,
- the issuing of questionnaires to competitors and customers of
both Topaz and Statoil, and the assessment of the responses to
those questionnaires,
- site visits to the oil terminals in Dublin and Galway,
- discussions with other government agencies, and
- an extensive research of the oil industry.
It was widely expected that the Competition Authority would launch
a full four-month phase 2 investigation. However, the authority
miscalculated the time limit within which it had to issue a decision
on whether or not to launch a phase 2 investigation and consequently
the case fell outside the relevant time limits. The result was that
the merger was deemed to be cleared for the purpose of the Act.
The Competition Authority in a press release pointed out that Topaz
had made proposals to address the competition concerns raised by
the authority and had agreed to implement those proposals, despite
the statutory clearance of the merger on an unconditional basis.
Competition Authority takes IMO to Court
The Competition Authority announced in July that it has initiated
proceedings in the High Court against the Irish Medical Organisation
for breach of the Competition Act 2002. The authority stated
that it had taken the action over the IMO's role in a dispute concerning
fees paid by life assurance companies to GPs for certain types of
medical information. The Authority began its investigation in February
2005. The dispute focused on fees paid by life assurance companies
for two types of medical information:
- private medical attendant's reports (PMARs), and
- medical examination reports (MERs).
The Authority has said that in its view the IMO's conduct has the
object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition
in the market for medical information and in the market for life
assurance, contrary to section 4(1) of the Act. It believes that
the IMO co-ordinated the behaviour of its GP members, including
directing or recommending the fees that GPs should charge for PMARs
and MERs. The Authority is also of the view that the IMO directed
or recommended to GPs not to provide PMARs or MERs unless life assurance
companies paid the recommended fees.
For further information please contact Marco
Hickey or Jennifer
Higgins.
Winter 2006.
© 2003-2009 LK Shields Solicitors.
All rights reserved.
|