May 22, 2012

Competition Law Reform in Brazil: Implications for Merger Control

Brazil’s House of Representatives passed a long-awaited competition bill (the Competition  Bill) on 5 October 2011, making significant changes to Brazilian competition law.  The Competition Bill  has yet to be signed into law by the Brazilian President and will take effect 180 days after signing.  Once in force, it will have wide-reaching implications across a number of areas, but from the perspective of international companies, some of the most important changes relate to merger control. 

At the moment, Brazil’s competition authority (CADE), requires notification by companies that reach relatively low thresholds—which are based currently on revenues or market share—within 15 working days of the signing of the first documents relating to the deal.  Once the parties have notified CADE, they are free to complete the deal; there is no obligation to suspend the deal pending clearance. 

This will change substantially once the Competition Bill takes effect,  and will have major implications for the strategy and timing of transactions that must be notified in Brazil.

  • Notification threshold.  The Competition Bill requires  CADE to be notified of a merger when one of the parties has achieved group-wide revenues of at least R$400 million (approximately €160 million/US$210.5 million) in Brazil in the previous financial year, and another party to the transaction has achieved group-wide revenues in Brazil of R$30 million (approximately €12.5 million/US$15.8 million).  Significantly, this removes the market share threshold, which is likely to be welcomed by companies.
  • Suspension of the transaction.  Parties will no longer be able to close the deal simply after notifying CADE.  Instead, parties will need to wait to receive clearance from CADE before closing, which can mean potential delays.  Closing a deal without clearance will expose parties to substantial penalties for “gun-jumping” and risk having the transaction deemed void.  The fines that can be imposed range from R$60,000 to R$60 million (approximately €24,000-€24 million/ US$32,000-US$32 million).
  • Timing.  As parties cannot close a deal notified in Brazil until CADE clears it, timing is critical.  The Competition Bill envisages a two-phase merger procedure similar to those used in the United States and the European Union.  In total, CADE will have a maximum of 240 days to complete its review of a proposed merger.  This is subject to a 60 day extension (if requested by the applicant) or 90 days if required by CADE for a justifiable reason.  It is expected, however, that CADE will endeavour to complete its review in a much shorter time period in most cases, to align itself with international practice. 

International companies with interests or potential interests in Brazil are urged to be aware of these important changes and to consider the implications of the new rules on their business objectives. 

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Andrea Hamilton is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in its Brussels office.  She is a member of the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group.  Formerly based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office, she has extensive experience practicing before the European Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice. 

32 2 282 35 15

About the Author

David Henry is an associate in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office.  His practice focuses on European competition law including merger control, cartels and abuse of dominance, and his clients include companies in the air transport, chemicals, electronics and semi-conductor products, food retailing and digital map industries.  He also advises clients in proceedings before the European courts. 

32 2 282 35 69

Contributors

Partner

Martina Maier is a partner in the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, based in its Brussels office. Martina is head of the firm’s European Antitrust and Competition Practice Group and her practice focuses on German and European competition law, including State aid, single firm conduct, merger control and agreements restricting competition.   She has extensive experience in representing clients in a broad range of industries before the European Commission and national competition authorities and courts.

32 2 282 35 66

About the Author

Partner

Joseph F. Winterscheid is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Washington, D.C., office.  Joe is head of the Firm’s global Antitrust & Competition Practice Group and his practice focuses on U.S. and international antitrust law.  From 1989 to 1994, Joe was partner-in-charge of an international law office in Brussels, where his practice focused on representing clients in competition matters before the European Commission and EU Member State competition authorities.

202 756 8061

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.