Here’s a question that’s worth asking if you’re assessing the prospects for the outcome of a CMA merger investigation:
In recent years which minority type of merger accounted for 100% – yes, 100% – of the marked rise in CMA Phase 1 references to an in-depth Phase 2 investigation?
- Cases that the CMA selected for investigation (as opposed to cases notified by the parties)?
- Cases involving a so-called non-horizontal theory of harm?
- Cases that attracted complaints from customers and competitors?
- Cases launched by the CMA in the second quarter of the year?
- Cases that are anticipated (rather than completed) and that were qualified for investigation under the turnover test?
- Cases that involved so-called ‘platform’ businesses?
- Cases involving concerns about potential competition (as opposed to the removal of existing competition)?
Which answer would you choose? (Do drop me a line or put your answer in the comments box below)
If there’s sufficient interest I’ll look at the main candidates in future posts.
And, no, it’s not a trick question!
One of the above is the correct answer!….
…..Which in turn means revisiting the simple ‘rising CMA intervention’ narrative that often appears in commentaries.