May 23, 2012

European Commission Blocks Proposed Merger Between NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Börse

The European Commission (EC) has blocked the proposed merger between Deutsche Börse and NYSE Euronext.  The decision follows the EC’s announcement that such a merger could cause a ‘near-monopoly’ in the European financial derivatives markets, by creating the world’s largest equity and derivatives exchange operator.   

The merger would have seen the uniting of Eurex (of Deutsche Börse) and Liffe (of NYSE Euronext), and would have resulted in the merged entity controlling more than 90 percent of European exchanged-traded derivatives.  Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, was in favour of the merger, arguing that it would create a European champion in the global financial market.

In taking its decision, the EC had to establish what the relevant market was.  The parties argued that the relevant market included exchange traded derivatives, as well as over-the-counter (OTC) and off-exchange traded derivatives.  By seeking to widen the scope of the market, the parties hoped to demonstrate that the proposed merger would not occupy a dominant position in the market and would therefore not be deemed to be anti-competitive.

However, the EC found that the relevant market included exchange-traded derivatives only, with OTC and off-exchange derivatives forming a separate market, as the products had different characteristics and fulfilled different customer demands.  This conclusion was reached on the following grounds:

  • Exchange-traded derivatives are fully standardised liquid products whereas OTC derivatives allow for the customisation of their legal and economic terms and conditions.
  • Exchange-traded derivatives are usually traded in small sizes (around EUR 100,000 per trade) whilst the average trade size for OTC derivatives is much larger (around EUR 200,000 per trade).
  • By definition, OTC trades cannot be undertaken on exchange.
  • Certain customers will only trade on exchange as they either cannot, or will not, trade OTC.  This could be for risk management reasons, or not having the required mandatory or operational set-up to trade OTC.

The EC’s decision does not follow the decision that was taken by several other regulators.  Approval for the merger had been granted in Germany, Luxembourg and in the U.S. by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

It is not yet known whether the EC’s decision will be subject to appeal, although such an appeal, if pursued, could last several years.  The remedies offered by the two parties, including the sale of Liffe’s European single stock equity derivatives products where these compete with Eurex, were deemed to be insufficient by the EC, particularly as they did not extend to existing competing products.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Prajakt Samant is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, based in its London office. His practice focuses primarily on representing banks, hedge funds and energy and commodity companies in a variety of transactional, cross-border regulatory, compliance and risk management matters in the energy sector. 

44 20 7577 6912

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.