German merger control: Loosening the grip
The long-awaited introduction of the second domestic turnover threshold for the application of German merger control came into force on 25 March, 2009. Accordingly, a number of mergers with only minor effects on the German market will no longer be subject to German merger control. Foreign acquisitions of German companies and mergers of foreign companies, which have only a small presence in Germany, will benefit most from this new threshold.
May 20, 2009 at 08:50 PM
5 minute read
Now the second domestic turnover threshold has been brought in, a number of mergers are no longer subject to German merger control
The long-awaited introduction of the second domestic turnover threshold for the application of German merger control came into force on 25 March, 2009. Accordingly, a number of mergers with only minor effects on the German market will no longer be subject to German merger control. Foreign acquisitions of German companies and mergers of foreign companies, which have only a small presence in Germany, will benefit most from this new threshold.
As part of the Third Act on the Elimination of Bureaucratic Obstacles for Medium-sized Companies (MEG III), the German legislature has amended section 35 para. 1 no. 2 of the Act Against Restraints of Competition (ARC) by adding a second domestic turnover threshold of €5m (£4.5m). From now on, a merger is only subject to German merger control if all three of the following conditions are met:
- the combined worldwide turnover of all of the parties involved exceeds €500m (£445m);
- the German turnover of at least one party exceeds €25m (£22m); and
- the German turnover of at least one other party exceeds €5m (£4.5m).
Practical implications
From now on, many transactions that involve a target company with only minor sales in Germany, or an acquirer without considerable operations in Germany, will no longer require regulatory filings with the Federal Cartel Office (FCO).
The practical results can be seen in the following two situations involving foreign companies, where German merger control clearance will no longer be required:
- A German company acquires a foreign company: both have a combined worldwide turnover of more than €500m (£445m) and the German company has a German turnover of more than €25m (£22m). The foreign target company is present in Germany, but its German turnover does not exceed €5m (£4.5m) per annum.
- Two foreign companies merge: both companies have a combined worldwide turnover of more than €500m (£445m). One of the foreign companies has a German turnover of more than €25m (£22m); the other foreign company is active in Germany, but its annual German turnover does not exceed €5m (£4.5m).
The new turnover threshold will have an impact not only on foreign mergers, but also on transactions within Germany if the target's overall (worldwide) turnover does not exceed €5m (£4.5m). Accordingly, the previous de minimis turnover threshold of €10m (£8.9m), which applies only to independent target companies, has now been supplemented by a second absolute de minimis rule applying to any company (dependent or independent) with an annual turnover not exceeding €5m (£4.5m). Special thresholds, however, continue to apply in the areas of press, television and radio.
Greater legal clarity
The jurisdiction of the German merger control regime was previously established on the basis of a 'domestic effects' test, according to which a transaction had to have an appreciable effect within Germany. The FCO and the courts applied a very wide interpretation of the term 'appreciable effect' in this context. In foreign-to-foreign transactions where one party exceeded the domestic turnover threshold of €25m (£22m), even minimal German sales of the other party were sufficient to trigger German merger control.
The newly introduced second domestic threshold of €5m (£4.5m), for the first time, gives clear guidance on which transactions require notification to the FCO. The new rule will therefore result in greater legal clarity, in particular in foreign-to-foreign merger cases which have only minor effects on competition in Germany, as the general 'domestic effect' criterion can now be assessed on the basis of a clear turnover figure. This amendment is in line with international efforts of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Competition Network (ICN), which have been calling for a clear and sufficiently national nexus for national merger control requirements.
Reduced case-load and easier assessment of filing requirements
The newly-introduced threshold will definitively reduce the number of cases notified to the FCO. It is estimated that the authority's caseload will be decreased by up to one-third i.e. by up to 700 cases per year. In particular, those foreign-to-foreign mergers which have little impact in Germany, and which are therefore generally viewed as unproblematic under German competition law, no longer have to be filed with the FCO. This leaves more resources for the FCO to deal with the really interesting merger control cases and antitrust enforcement.
For companies and advisers the new rules will make it easier, in particular in international transactions, to determine whether or not a deal requires merger filing and approval in Germany. This will certainly reduce the risk of violating notification requirements, which could result in the invalidity or dissolution of the merger and the imposition of fines by the authorities. This is particularly important since the FCO has recently taken a stricter approach to the enforcement in 'gun jumping' cases, by imposing severe fines on parties completing transactions without prior merger control approval. From now on, there will be no more room to argue that a foreign-to-foreign transaction had no domestic effect in Germany if both domestic turnover thresholds are satisfied.
The legislative change is a sign of a modern and pragmatic regulatory approach towards increasingly international M&A activity. However, given the relatively low domestic turnover thresholds compared to the size of the economy, Germany will still remain high up on the list of countries requiring national merger control filings in international M&A transactions.
Georg Philipp Cotta is a partner at Beiten Burkhardt in Munich.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFreshfields Name Change Becomes Official as Company with Similar Name Dissolves
2 minute readLeaders at Top French Firms Anticipate Strong M&A Market in 2025 Despite Uncertainty
6 minute readEU Parliament Gives Blessing to New EU Competition Chief Ribera Rodríguez
2 minute readSimpson Thacher Becomes Second Firm to Launch in Luxembourg in 2 Days With A&O Shearman Hires
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250