European Commission prohibits ThyssenKrupp and Tata Steel merger

European Commission prohibits ThyssenKrupp and Tata Steel merger

The European Commission has prohibited the proposed merger between ThyssenKrupp and Tata Steel, the second and third largest producers of flat carbon steel in the EEA.  This is the third merger prohibition decision taken by the Commission in 2019 and only the eleventh taken under the current Merger Regulation (Regulation 139/2004).

The Commission found serious competition concerns in metallic coated and laminated steel for packaging applications, where the proposed merger would have created a market leader, and galvanised flat carbon steel for the automotive industry.

The Commission found that the merger would have eliminated an important competitor and this would not have been offset by competition from imports.

The Commission concluded that various structural divestments offered by the parties would not be sufficient to fully address its concerns.

The case shows how consolidation in the EU steel sector continues to face antitrust hurdles, yet this may be needed if the sector is to revitalise itself against growing competitiveness at global level.

Tata Steel/ ThyssenKrupp (M.8713)

CAT refuses to adjourn collective proceedings order application

CAT refuses to adjourn collective proceedings order application

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has published an order made on 4 June 2019 refusing the applications by London & South Eastern Railway and South Western Trains to adjourn applications to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 by Mr Justin Gutmann (the class representative).

The CAT’s order may be contrasted with its 17 May decision to adjourn CPO applications in two collective damages actions against truck manufacturers. The CAT found that there were manifestly strong reasons to adjourn the CPO applications due to the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court by Mastercard of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Merricks v MasterCard.  In that case the Court of Appeal reversed the CAT's decision to refuse a CPO.

The CAT states that the respondents in the Gutman case may renew their application following the decision of the Supreme Court on the application for permission to appeal in Merricks.