July 28, 2014

Germany Changes Merger Rules

Changes to the standard of review and key aspects of the merger review process make Germany's rules more consistent with those of the European Commission.

On June 30, Germany introduced a change to the basic test that its Federal Cartel Office (FCO) uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions, as well as some important changes to the FCO's merger review process. Because of both the size of the German economy and the broad reach of the German merger review rules, these changes could affect many transactions, even when the main nexus of a transaction is not in Germany (or even in Europe). The principal changes are summarized below.

Merger Review Standard

  • The standard of review for the competitive effect of a transaction has been changed from a standard that considers whether a transaction will facilitate "dominance" in a market to the test employed by the European Commission—whether a transaction will lead to a "significant impediment to effective competition." However, since the potential for market dominance remains the FCO's principal focus, the effect of this change may not be as great as intended. The concept of market dominance includes both unilateral anticompetitive effects—effects, such as higher prices or lower outputs, that firms can impose by acting alone—and some forms of "coordinated" anticompetitive effects, such as the increased likelihood of a cartel or tacit collusion. It remains to be seen whether this change may cause the FCO's analysis to become more reliant on economic analysis, which could make it less predictable.

  • The market share level at which the FCO will presume that a transaction will cause market dominance has been increased from 33% to 40%. The impact of this change will be more immediate, as it will reduce the number of transactions that are subject to close scrutiny.

Procedural Changes

  • The FCO will be able to "stop the clock" to relax the very rigid time limits of the current law when parties do not respond fully to a request for additional information.

  • The "second phase" of the merger review period, which is normally three months long, will automatically be extended by one month when the parties make a settlement proposal.

  • Multiple transactions between the same parties that occur within a two-year time period will be considered a single transaction.


Taken as a whole, these changes could make merger enforcement in Germany more closely resemble the enforcement activity of the European Commission. It also appears probable that economic analysis will become more prominent over time, which could bring German merger analysis more in line with the practices of the U.S. enforcement agencies. Companies that are considering transactions that could be reportable in Germany or with the European Commission should consult with counsel early in the process to ensure compliance with the new rules.

Copyright © 2014 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author


Jürgen Beninca is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Antitrust Practice. His practice focuses on the representation of companies in European and German cartel and merger control proceedings. In this context, Dr. Beninca, in addition to counseling clients on compliance with antitrust regulations, represents clients before cartel authorities and courts. He also represents clients before German courts in areas such as litigation and intellectual property, and assists regularly in internal investigations in FCPA matters.

49 69 71 40 07 19

About the Author

Eva Rayle, Antitrust Attorney, Morgan Lewis Law Firm
Of Counsel

Eva Rayle is of counsel in Morgan Lewis's Antitrust Practice. Ms. Rayle focuses her practice on international criminal antitrust and follow-on civil litigation, as well as European and German competition law.

In 2000, Ms. Rayle spent six months in the Washington, D.C. office of Morgan Lewis where she was involved in international cartel investigations and related civil antitrust litigation.

Ms. Rayle earned her LL.M. from the University of Iowa College of Law with a thesis on sports leagues and antitrust law. While in law school, she was a research assistant for...

49 69 71 40 07 59

Jonathan M. Rich is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Antitrust Practice. Mr. Rich's practice includes litigation and representation before the federal enforcement agencies, including grand jury investigations, mergers and acquisitions, and other civil investigations. His practice focuses on antitrust matters in a variety of industries, with a particular focus on financial institutions. Both at Morgan Lewis and previously at the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Rich has been involved in all of the major government antitrust investigations of the financial...


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 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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.