Berendsen(Elis)/Kings Laundry交易:合同撤资补救措施的事后评估

Q4 Social Sciences Competition Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-12-28 DOI:10.4337/clj.2021.04.02
P. Gorecki
{"title":"Berendsen(Elis)/Kings Laundry交易:合同撤资补救措施的事后评估","authors":"P. Gorecki","doi":"10.4337/clj.2021.04.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An article published in 2020 in the Competition Law Journal argued that, on an ex ante basis, the contract divestment remedy package agreed by Ireland’s competition agency in the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction would be unlikely to mitigate the agency’s competition concerns. In particular, the remedy package would not lead to successful entry into the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. This article is an ex post assessment of that remedy. Given the remedy’s fix-it-first nature, the agency was satisfied that entry was both likely and timely. However, the evidence to date – more than 12 months after the entrant took title to the contracts – suggests that entry has not been sufficient. Indeed, the entrant is conspicuous by its absence from the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. Such an outcome is consistent with the incentives of the merged entity to select a weak competitor, reinforced by the excessively narrow set of assets that constituted the contract remedy package. Prohibition or a strengthened contract divestment package would have been better alternatives. Such an apparent relaxation of merger control suggests that Ireland’s competition agency needs to reassess its approach to problematic mergers that are likely to damage consumer welfare.","PeriodicalId":36415,"journal":{"name":"Competition Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction: an ex post assessment of the contract divestment remedy\",\"authors\":\"P. Gorecki\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/clj.2021.04.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An article published in 2020 in the Competition Law Journal argued that, on an ex ante basis, the contract divestment remedy package agreed by Ireland’s competition agency in the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction would be unlikely to mitigate the agency’s competition concerns. In particular, the remedy package would not lead to successful entry into the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. This article is an ex post assessment of that remedy. Given the remedy’s fix-it-first nature, the agency was satisfied that entry was both likely and timely. However, the evidence to date – more than 12 months after the entrant took title to the contracts – suggests that entry has not been sufficient. Indeed, the entrant is conspicuous by its absence from the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. Such an outcome is consistent with the incentives of the merged entity to select a weak competitor, reinforced by the excessively narrow set of assets that constituted the contract remedy package. Prohibition or a strengthened contract divestment package would have been better alternatives. Such an apparent relaxation of merger control suggests that Ireland’s competition agency needs to reassess its approach to problematic mergers that are likely to damage consumer welfare.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Competition Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2021.04.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Competition Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2021.04.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年发表在《竞争法杂志》上的一篇文章认为,在事前的基础上,爱尔兰竞争机构在Berendsen(Elis)/Kings Laundry交易中达成的合同撤资补救方案不太可能缓解该机构的竞争担忧。特别是,一揽子补救措施不会成功地为医院提供床单租赁服务。本文是对该补救措施的事后评估。鉴于补救措施的第一性,该机构认为进入既有可能又及时。然而,迄今为止的证据——在参赛者获得合同所有权12个多月后——表明参赛还不够。事实上,该公司因没有为医院提供床单租赁服务而引人注目。这一结果与被合并实体选择弱势竞争对手的动机一致,而构成合同补救方案的资产范围过于狭窄又加强了这一动机。禁止或加强合同撤资方案本来是更好的选择。合并控制的明显放松表明,爱尔兰竞争管理机构需要重新评估其处理可能损害消费者福利的有问题合并的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction: an ex post assessment of the contract divestment remedy
An article published in 2020 in the Competition Law Journal argued that, on an ex ante basis, the contract divestment remedy package agreed by Ireland’s competition agency in the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction would be unlikely to mitigate the agency’s competition concerns. In particular, the remedy package would not lead to successful entry into the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. This article is an ex post assessment of that remedy. Given the remedy’s fix-it-first nature, the agency was satisfied that entry was both likely and timely. However, the evidence to date – more than 12 months after the entrant took title to the contracts – suggests that entry has not been sufficient. Indeed, the entrant is conspicuous by its absence from the supply of flat linen rental services for hospitals. Such an outcome is consistent with the incentives of the merged entity to select a weak competitor, reinforced by the excessively narrow set of assets that constituted the contract remedy package. Prohibition or a strengthened contract divestment package would have been better alternatives. Such an apparent relaxation of merger control suggests that Ireland’s competition agency needs to reassess its approach to problematic mergers that are likely to damage consumer welfare.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Competition Law Journal
Competition Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
If the Competition and Markets Authority were an emoji: merger clearance lessons from Meta/Giphy Economists on trial: how to make expert duties, meetings, and hot tubs work The UK and EU competition rules for research and development agreements: falling out of lockstep The assessment and communication of the benefits of competition interventions by the Competition and Markets Authority The risks of a form-based approach to exclusionary abuses of dominance – an economic perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1