The European Commission’s smooth approval of Merck & Co.’s $41 billion acquisition of rival Schering-Plough Corp. could be a textbook example of how parties to a merger or acquisition can get speedy clearance by anticipating – and remedying – antirust enforcers’ likely objections at the start. 

One might have expected the union of these two heavyweights – which, if completed, will create the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company – to run into some problems with European Union antitrust authorities.  Yet, on Friday, the Commission announced that it had cleared the merger, just one month after it was formally notified of it. click here for more »

Anyone who doubts that ballot design can change the course of the world needs to revisit the infamous Butterfly Ballot’s pivotal role in George Bush’s unusual path to the U.S. presidency.

Perhaps realizing the decisive effects ballot design can have, the European Commission is seeking comments on a proposed Microsoft Web Browser Ballot that could weaken Microsoft Internet Explorer’s global domination.

The European Commission is inviting software companies, computer manufacturers, consumers and other interested parties to submit comments on the Microsoft proposal to offer users of its Windows operating system a greater choice of web browsers.

Microsoft hopes the proposal will settle the web browser chapter of its long-running antitrust dispute with EU antitrust enforcers. click here for more »

While the antitrust class action is historically an American enforcement tool, the European Union is on the verge of pressing this powerful hammer into the hands of its member states.

Under a draft EU Directive, state bodies and nonprofit organizations appointed by national governments would be able to bring class actions in national courts against companies that fix prices or abuse their dominant market share.  Victims would automatically be included in the class action unless they opt out.  The draft Directive allows victims at least two years to take legal action to recover actual losses and lost profit after a final court ruling on a company’s liability.

European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes is expected to present the proposed Directive to fellow commissioners in the next few weeks.  If adopted as a Directive by the European Commission, EU Member States would be required to implement it or face heavy fines. click here for more »

Canadian competition law litigation took a step forward last week with the decision in Irving Paper Ltd v. Atofina Chemicals Inc. et al., in which the Ontario Superior Court certified a consolidated class of direct and indirect purchasers in a horizontal price-fixing case involving the hydrogen peroxide industry.  The case has important precedential value as it represents the first time in Canada that an antitrust class action was certified in an international conspiracy/cartel case on a contested basis.

The Court had to determine whether a class of purchasers of hydrogen peroxide met the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, including: 1) whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action; 2) whether there was an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be represented by the class representative; 3) whether the claims or defenses of the class members raise common issues; 4) whether the class proceeding was the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues; and 5) whether there was a representative plaintiff or defendant who would adequately represent the interests of the class. click here for more »

Don’t put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want on the front page of the newspaper.  Or in a decision of the European Commission slapping a 1.06 billion Euros fine (approximately $1.5 billion) on your company.

On September 21, 2009, the Commission released a public version of its May 13 decision in which it imposed the record fine on Intel, the world’s largest semiconductor chip manufacturer, for violating EU antitrust law by abusing its dominant position in the market for computer chips known as x86 central processing units (CPUs).

What is most striking about the decision is that it quotes emails by executives of Intel and PC manufacturers, which the Commission contends are powerful evidence of Intel’s culpability.  This is the first time the Commission has publicized such evidence. click here for more »