Notification and clearance timetable

Filing formalities

What are the deadlines for filing? Are there sanctions for not filing and are they applied in practice?

Like the EU rules, the Act provides for a two-phase filing procedure: the notification (first stage) and the licence (second stage). The Act does not require that an agreement be signed or that a controlling interest be acquired before notification is possible. A concrete intention to engage in a transaction is sufficient. The ACM has to decide whether a licence authorising the transaction is required within four weeks starting the day after the receipt of the notification. If a licence is required, a second-phase examination will be necessary. To initiate the second phase, the parties (or party) concerned must submit a separate application. The ACM must decide on the licence application within 13 weeks.

The implementation of a concentration before the ACM has provided clearance can lead to administrative penalties (see questions 11 and 12). If the parties provide incorrect or incomplete information in their notification, the ACM can impose a fine of €900,000 or 1 per cent of the annual worldwide turnover of the company (whichever is higher).

Which parties are responsible for filing and are filing fees required?

In case of a merger, the acquiring companies have to notify the transaction. Where a company acquires control of another company, the obligation to notify applies to the acquiring company. With regard to public bids, the bidder has to notify the transaction. The filing fees are €17,450 for the notification and €34,900 for the licence application.

What are the waiting periods and does implementation of the transaction have to be suspended prior to clearance?

The implementation of a concentration pending the statutory waiting period of four weeks following notification of the proposed concentration is prohibited. There are two exceptions to this rule. The implementation of a public bid is not prohibited if the ACM is notified immediately and the acquirer does not exercise its voting rights. Further, the ACM may for serious reasons (such as risk of irreparable harm) grant a dispensation from the prohibition at the request of one of the notifying parties. The ACM quite regularly grants exemptions to the standstill obligation in cases involving a target company in financial distress. If the parties go ahead with implementation of the transaction prior to obtaining clearance, they assume the risk that competition concerns are subsequently identified by the ACM, which may require amendment or even unwinding of the transaction.

If the ACM decides that an application for a licence is required, the concentration will be further suspended for the 13-week period following the application for a licence. Here again, an exemption can be granted upon request to prevent serious damage.

The four-week and 13-week periods will be suspended from the day on which the ACM requires further information from the undertakings involved in the concentration until the day on which such information is provided. The ACM frequently makes use of its power to request additional information. Parties should take possible requests for additional information and following up on those requests into account when planning the timing of the notification and the implementation of a concentration.

The notifying parties have the possibility to submit a reasoned request to suspend the four-week period. The ACM will allow such a suspension if it assists in the assessment of the notification. This voluntary suspension may only be requested once. In addition, the 13-week period can be suspended, at the request of the notifying party or at the initiative of the ACM. In both cases, written assent of all undertakings concerned is required.

Pre-clearance closing

What are the possible sanctions involved in closing or integrating the activities of the merging businesses before clearance and are they applied in practice?

The implementation of a concentration before the ACM that has been notified thereof or during the subsequent period of four weeks, or of a concentration for which a licence is required where no licence is granted, may result in a void transaction. In addition, the ACM can impose administrative penalties, such as fines up to a maximum of €900,000 or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the company (whichever is higher), which can be imposed on each party that is responsible for filing.

The ACM may also make an order, backed by periodic penalty payments, that the undertakings concerned cease or reverse the infringement.

The competition authority has imposed fines for implementing a concentration without having notified and received clearance in several cases, indicating that it is fully prepared to impose tough sanctions for gun jumping violations. An example is the sale by the Dutch state of shares in Fortis Corporate Insurance to Amlin. Amlin did not notify this transaction before transferring the shares. The competition authority therefore imposed a fine of €1,366,000 on Amlin. In 2012, the Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry ruled that the seller is not responsible for filing the proposed transaction and that therefore the competition authority is not entitled to impose sanctions on the seller. In addition, in 2013, the District Court Rotterdam ruled that the fine imposed on Amlin should be reduced to €130,000 because the method used to calculate the fine led to an arbitrary result. The ACM had imposed the fine in the year after the concentration was implemented, meaning that the turnover of Fortis Corporate Insurance was also taken into account when determining the amount of the fine. Had the authority imposed the fine during the year that the concentration was implemented, the Fortis turnover would have been excluded, resulting in a much lower fine.

Are sanctions applied in cases involving closing before clearance in foreign-to-foreign mergers?

As indicated in question 12, the ACM is prepared to impose sanctions for gun jumping violations. The Dutch competition authority has also shown its willingness to impose sanctions in foreign-to-foreign mergers that have not been notified before implementation. An example concerns the acquisition of Vinnolit and Vintron by Advent. Vinnolit and Vintron were both German undertakings that were acquired by Advent. Because of an incorrect calculation of the turnover of Advent in the Netherlands, the parties had determined that a notification in the Netherlands was not necessary. After implementation, however, Advent noticed its mistake and voluntarily informed the competition authority. The competition authority found that the parties had violated the Act and imposed sanctions on Advent and the sellers.

What solutions might be acceptable to permit closing before clearance in a foreign-to-foreign merger?

Specific solutions are not available, but a divestment or other measure before closing, so that the notification thresholds are no longer met, means that clearance is no longer required. In addition, the parties also have the opportunity to request a derogation from the prohibition on implementing an intended concentration before clearance from the ACM (see question 11).

Public takeovers

Are there any special merger control rules applicable to public takeover bids?

The implementation of a public bid is exempt from the prohibition on implementing an intended concentration before clearance provided that the ACM is notified immediately and the acquiring party does not exercise its voting rights.

Documentation

What is the level of detail required in the preparation of a filing, and are there sanctions for supplying wrong or missing information?

Standard forms (in Dutch) must be used for both the notification and the licence application (an unofficial English language version is available on the ACM’s website). The notification form requests information on the undertakings concerned such as a description of their business activities, a description of the sectors in which they are active, information on the group (if applicable), and a financial outline of the preceding year showing the total turnover and the turnover in the Netherlands. Further, the notification form requests a description of the transaction and supporting documentation (the supporting documents can be submitted in another language, though the ACM may ask for a translation), such as the most recent annual accounts and reports of the undertakings, the most recent documents showing the intent to effectuate the concentration and the granting of powers of attorney by the undertakings concerned to the designated contact person or persons. Parties must also submit market research reports and, if there is an overlap between their activities, information on their major competitors, customers and trade organisations active in the sectors in which the parties’ activities overlap. Moreover, parties must indicate whether there are any ancillary restraints and if they wish the ACM to declare whether they fall within article 10 of the Act (see question 28). If there are markets to be investigated, parties should provide both value and volume-based market share figures. Parties are also asked to indicate whether the concentration has been or will be filed with any other competition authority in the EU and, if so, to provide details.

The ACM has the authority to impose fines of up to €900,000 or 1 per cent of the relevant turnover of the undertaking concerned (whichever is higher), if it has been provided with wrong or misleading information. Such fines are imposed only very rarely. An example is a fine of €468,000 (reduced on appeal to €312,000) for providing incomplete information regarding activities of subsidiaries and for understating market shares. It cannot be excluded that the ACM may follow the recent practice of the European Commission whereby the provision of accurate and complete information is more critically assessed and more sanctions are imposed in this respect.

Investigation phases and timetable

What are the typical steps and different phases of the investigation?

Cases that do not present substantive competition concerns are typically submitted to the ACM after a brief call to indicate that the filing will be submitted. Cases that do potentially present substantive competition concerns are typically submitted to the ACM after pre-notification discussions. However, pre-notification discussions are optional and parties may choose to immediately make a formal filing even if it raises competition concerns.

Upon receipt of the notification, the ACM must take a decision within four weeks (this period can be suspended, if a reasoned request is submitted by the notifying parties). This period will start running the day after the receipt of the notification provided that it is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. The ACM will publish the fact of notification within a few days, assess the notification and, when necessary, ask the undertakings involved for further information. Information may also be requested from third parties such as customers, suppliers and competitors. Third parties with sufficient interest are allowed to intervene. The parties will be informed of the conclusions of the investigation and requested to indicate the parts of the decision that they consider confidential. The decision is then published. The vast majority of cases are decided within four weeks. Some cases take longer, owing to suspension of this time period resulting from requests for additional information and replies to these (see question 11).

If the ACM considers that it cannot clear the concentration within the first phase, it will determine that a licence is required. Following receipt of the application for a licence, an in-depth second-phase investigation will commence. The ACM must take a decision within 13 weeks following the application for the licence. It will ask the notifying parties, as well as third parties, for further information and can also commission expert reports. If the assessment reveals competition concerns, the ACM will usually (although it is not obliged to do so) communicate its preliminary assessment in writing to the undertakings concerned and to affected third parties. The undertakings may respond to this document, propose remedies or do both. The ACM is also, in certain circumstances, willing to organise intermediate state of play meetings.

If a notified case fulfils certain requirements, the ACM may issue a summary decision. The ACM has published guidelines on when a case definitely does not fulfil these requirements, and is therefore not a candidate for a short-form decision. It will normally issue a short-form decision if it is clear that Dutch merger control is applicable, that the concentration does not raise any competition concerns and if there are no objections from third parties. The adoption of a short-form decision may speed up the process.

What is the statutory timetable for clearance? Can it be speeded up?

The vast majority of cases are cleared through a short-form decision. Those cases, which do not present substantive competition concerns, are usually cleared in three to four weeks from notification. The ACM is willing to provide clearance even faster when the parties can explain the need for doing so. Examples include financial distress of the target company and the need to safeguard business continuity. The ACM’s approach to pre-notification meetings is set out in guidelines. Simple cases do not require lengthy pre-notification discussions. Informally announcing the notification a few days in advance is sufficient for cases that do not raise potential concerns.

For more complex cases, if the ACM decides that a licence is required that triggers an in-depth second-phase investigation, a decision will need to be adopted within 13 weeks of the application for the licence. However, the ACM often stops the clock to request further information, which extends the time frame for obtaining a second-phase decision significantly. To illustrate, second-phase investigations in recent years on average lasted more than 280 days in total.