Better Assessment of UK Merger Control Risk

Mergers and acquisitions involve the potential for the relevant competition authorities to scrutinise a deal and, if they think it may harm competition, impose remedies or prohibit it altogether.

This article focuses on merger control in the UK, by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

The better the assessment of these intervention risks (sometimes known as ‘merger control risks’) the better the judgments companies are able to make on matters such as:

  • whether to go ahead with a putative transaction or to re-shape it to mitigate the potential competition risks
  • whether or not to notify deals to the CMA
    • (it’s worth noting here that non-notified deals called in for examination by the CMA were at record numbers in 2018)
  • what they need to do to manage and mitigate risks, both before and during an investigation – recognising the potential for unwelcome surprises, including:
    • unexpected merger remedies or
    • costly Phase 2 investigations that the company hadn’t anticipated
  • whether or not to offer remedies to head off problems at Phase 1 or risk reference to a full Phase 2 investigation.

In practice companies adopt a wide spectrum of approaches, ranging from no risk analysis at all right up to a full replication of the assessment that the CMA might take.

Most lie somewhere in between but many make limited use of lessons from past cases.

As a result companies are regularly surprised by Phase 1 outcomes.

With just over 300 Phase 1 merger decisions now published there are many insights available that companies can use, and in some cases are using, better to assess and manage their  prospects.

Here are four initial steps companies can take to help utilise learning from those decisions much more effectively:

1.Take into account the full range of risk factors identified in past cases, not just some of them.

Ignoring even one of the main risk factors gives an unrealistic outlook which detracts from effective planning.

Risks unrecognised cannot be mitigated or managed.

Looking across past cases, where three of the top risk factors are present the Phase 1 clearance rate has been less than 20%. (And in 2018 it was 0%).

This is orders of magnitude lower than the average clearance rate (of 67%).

What’s more, the problematic deals in this ‘higher risk’ category have been disproportionately more likely to be referred to Phase 2 investigation, rather than being remedied at Phase 1.

2. Recognise the risk in ‘low risk’ mergers

The key here is that:

Low risk is seldom no risk.

This is where CEOs have most often been taken by surprise because

  1. There is a tendency to underestimate risks in ‘lower risk’ cases (especially from factors that are largely or wholly outside the merging parties’ control) and
  2. Mergers in the ‘lower risk’ category account for a large number of cases.

Even in the 73 cases to date where none of the top competition risk factors materialised the CMA found problems in 15 of these ‘lower risk’ cases, of which 6 went on to a full Phase 2 investigation.

15 cases since the CMA began equates to 2 or 3 cases each year. That’s a lot of scope for surprise.

3. Understand the impact of different types of risk .

There are now enough previous CMA decisions to be able to gauge the influence of different factors on case outcomes and to take this into account in focusing effort on the aspects that really matter to building a stronger case.

For instance:

  • What if a transaction involves more than one type of competition issue?
  • What if customers and/or competitors complain?
  • What if a case involves many local markets?
  • What if there are unhelpful internal business documents?
  • What if these factors combine?

In an earlier blog, I looked specifically at the role that so-called ‘market shares’ have played in merger decisions.

And in this one, I showed how merging companies paid too little attention to how closely they compete with one another.

4. Learn from cases that have a similar risk profile

In preparing for a CMA merger investigation most companies take a look at what happened in previous cases in their own sector.

There’s nothing wrong with that but it does mean that a lot of relevant case-learning often goes untapped.

It can be especially insightful to look at what made the difference between clearance and non-clearance in cases with a similar risk profile to your own, including those outside one’s own sector.

In conclusion…

Understanding and managing merger control risks can help avoid costly mistakes and focus case-making effort.

The CMA’s 300 merger decisions to date provide plenty of insights that can be deployed in a very practical way in order better to manage risk and build a stronger competition case.

——————————————————————————————————————-

This article has focused on risk management and is based on analysis from my comprehensive database of CMA merger decisions.

In addition the 300 cases to date offer many other lessons as to how best to make a merger case. These feature prominently in my merger briefings.

 

Which mergers threaten competition?

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has just celebrated its third anniversary since taking over from the Office of Fair Trading and Competition Commission.

It has now made competition decisions in nearly 200 Phase 1 merger cases, enough to be able to discern some of the key factors that have informed its decision-making.

One factor that some (though far from all) companies and investors think about in assessing the chances of merger clearance is how the CMA may view the share of supply that the merged company would have in the products and services in which they overlap.

The following share of supply heatmap shows the pattern of decisions to date:

Share of supply in CMA Phase 1 decisions*

(April 1st 2014 to March 31st 2017)

170402-Share of supply heatmap

The colours indicate the proportion of cases that the CMA has found to represent a ‘substantial lessening of competition’ (SLC) at Phase 1 – ranging from:

  • brightest green at 0%
  • up through the shades of green to middle yellow (circa 50%)
  • and on through orange to the deepest red (100%).

The figures underlying the heatmap are taken from the large number of Phase 1 CMA decisions that report the merging parties’ shares of supply in the markets on which those cases focus.

Three features of the map stand out:

  1. The very high proportion of SLC findings in cases where the party with the smaller share of supply has a share of 20% or more
  2. No SLC finding where the parties’ combined share of supply is below 40%
  3. The significant proportion of cases that are found not to threaten an SLC even where the parties have a high combined share of supply.  This is where many of the cases with the most interesting lessons for companies and investors reside.

In general, as one might expect, the proportion of SLC findings increases the higher the combined share of supply and the higher the percentage increment to the larger share.

Further detail is covered in my merger briefings, including:

  • How (and how not) to interpret the heatmap
  • The most insightful parts of the map
  • Disaggregation of results, for example
    • by decision-maker
    • sector patterns
    • time period
    • remedies versus reference versus ‘de minimis’
  • Other notable patterns in the CMA’s decisions to date.

There are not yet enough Phase 2 cases to give a meaningful picture for Phase2.


 

* The share of supply heatmap is copyright Adrian Payne, 2017. The heatmap can be quoted and reproduced with the appropriate attribution.

 

 

2015/16: A Record Year For UK Merger Control

This post looks at the pattern of merger control decisions during the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA’s) second full year, which ended on March 31st. The decisions covered are those for which final decisions were published during the year.

In summary:

2015/16 turns out to have been a record-breaking year in many different respects

  1. A record low number of Phase 1 merger decisions

The 62 published CMA Phase 1 decisions was the lowest number of any year since the Enterprise Act came into force and well down on 2015/16.

A third successive sharp drop in the number of non-notified mergers that the CMA ‘called in’ for investigation contributed to the fall. Only 10 cases were called in, the lowest number I can recall for any year. Another record.

Phase 1 Merger Decisions – 2015/16 compared to previous years

160406-phase 1 figures 15-16

2. A record low number of decisions was found not to meet the jurisdiction criteria

The number and proportion of published cases found not to meet the qualifying tests for jurisdiction was in 2015/16 a fraction of its historic average – and by far the lowest in any year so far under the Enterprise Act.

3. Phase 1 competition problems at a record high

The proportion of Phase 1 cases meeting the jurisdiction tests (so-called ‘qualified cases’) that was found to threaten a ‘substantial lessening of competition’ (SLC) doubled compared to the CMA’s first year and reached a record high of 38%.

There are two elements to this that are worth noting:

  • Cases that are candidates for a Phase 1 SLC decision are examined in detail at a so-called ‘Case Review Meeting’, late in the Phase 1 process. The proportion of cases taken to a Case Review Meeting was well above average in 2015/16.
  • And of those cases, over 80% resulted in an SLC finding – again well above average.
  1. The lowest ever proportion of cases decided at Phase 1

The proportion of qualified cases decided at Phase 1 was the lowest to date under the Enterprise Act.

This result stems from the fact that, even though the proportion of problematic cases referred to Phase 2 for further investigation was well below average, the percentage of problematic cases in the overall caseload was at a record high, as described above.

  1. The proportion of problematic Phase 1 cases deemed too small to merit a Phase 2 investigation was at a record low

This statistic relates to so-called ‘de minimis’ cases. It is a great example of how one needs to look at individual cases (both notified and un-notified) in order to interpret the result.

Might it indicate that the CMA is taking a harder line on arguments put to it that a case is too small to warrant further investigation? Or does it show that the CMA is calling in fewer potential ‘de minimis’ cases? Cases strongly favour the latter.

6. A record high for Phase 1 remedies

The proportion of problematic cases dealt with by remedies at Phase 1 rose to a record high of nearly 40% in 2015/16.

It is striking that, at one point during the year, seven out of ten consecutive SLC decisions (excluding de minimis cases and automatic references) were dealt with through Phase 1 remedy rather than reference to Phase 2, another record under the Enterprise Act as far as I recall.

It is interesting that this is in the context of there being….

7. No Phase 2 prohibitions for the second consecutive year.

This means that the CMA Phase 2 decision-makers have yet to prohibit a merger.

There have, however, been two previous occasions in which there have been no prohibited mergers for two consecutive years. So this one isn’t a record !

2015/16 – CMA Final Phase 2 Merger Decisions

160406-phase 2 decisions 15-16

Looking ahead

Where does this cascade of new merger records leave the CMA, merging firms, competitors and customers?

There is little doubt that the CMA has become increasingly selective in the cases it has chosen to call in for investigation, to a degree that requires highly reliable information being available from merging parties in order to enable the CMA to avoid missing too many problematic deals of reasonable size.

The particular challenge here for the CMA is to make these ‘call in’ decisions accurately and quickly outside of the formal review process, without the range and quality of cross-checks that comes from interaction with competitors and customers when a case is called in for review.

As some have already recognised, for merging parties greater CMA selectivity is clearly relevant to decisions regarding notification. A key question, therefore, is whether the CMA will decide to be as selective in the year ahead. It is worth remembering here that there has already been more than one occasion under the Enterprise Act when tighter case selection has been followed by a move back to a more expansive approach to calling in cases for review.

For customers and competitors greater CMA case selectivity clearly puts a premium on making representations more quickly, rather than waiting for a formal investigation to begin. The much-expanded role for pre-notification also points in this direction, as does the earlier involvement of the Phase 1 decision-maker than used to be the case.

Turning to substantive decisions made during 2015/16 , as the National Audit Office recently put it, “the CMA is expanding the practice of clearing cases with remedies in phase 1 without the need to go for a more detailed and resource-intensive phase 2 review.”

It would be easy, however, to overstate the extent to which the 2015/16 remedies record is due to the CMA’s expanded Phase 1 remedy ambitions. In particular, the increasing level of challenge in many deal valuations (a factor in the low number of deals) seems to me to have had a notable effect on the appetite for regulatory risk and therefore the pattern of deals being brought to fruition (including their suitability for Phase 1 remedies).

Two other questions are also relevant here:

  • To what extent has the way in which CMA plans and manages its casework (now that Phase 1 and Phase 2 are under one roof) affected the pattern of Phase 1 decisions being made?
  • And what has been the impact of certain ‘bold’ Phase 2 clearance decisions on the attitude to remedies at Phase 1, both by parties and by the CMA?

On the whole, my own 2015/16 casework leads me strongly to suspect that the CMA’s record-breaking year for mergers hides patterns that are more complicated than they first appear from the aggregate statistics.

As always, many of the main lessons for interested parties to future mergers come from understanding what has worked well or badly in individual cases during 2015/16, as well as from understanding what the aggregate figures do and do not show.

In both respects 2015/16 should leave plenty of pause for thought for all concerned.

——————————————————-

© Adrian Payne, 2016

The CMA’s first year – Mergers


On March 31st Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) completed its first year. In those 12 months the new agency took 84 Phase 1 and 3 Phase 2 merger decisions.

This article summarises some of the main points of interest. These focus on the pattern of decisions and the analysis underlying them (as opposed to how the changes to the merger control process have worked – which merits an article in its own right).

  1. Case numbers recover

As the graph below shows, Phase 1 case numbers were nearly back up to the annual average under the Enterprise Act, the highest number of cases since 2007/08.

This was despite a sharp reduction in the number of non-notified mergers that the CMA ‘called in’ for investigation –  one reason why the proportion of cases found not to meet the qualifying tests for jurisdiction was well below average (as also shown in the graph).

Is the CMA being more selective than its predecessor, particularly when it comes to smaller transactions (see also point 4)? Or were there simply fewer problematic non-notified deals among the 600-or-so transactions screened by the agency’s Mergers Intelligence team during the year?

Phase 1 Merger Control: 2014/2015

(Please click on the graph to enlarge it)

 150331-Phase 1 stats

There were only three Phase 2 decisions made during the year, the second lowest number in any year under the Enterprise Act and well below the average. This reflects in part the dearth of references to Phase 2 in the CMA’s first six months –  described in my earlier article – together with only two references being made in the OFT’s final six months.

  1. The 80/20 rule rides again

Around 80% of Phase 1 cases were cleared. Nearly 20% were found to give a reasonable prospect of in a substantial lessening of competition. This proportion is very much in line with the average level under the CMA’s predecessor Phase 1 body, the Office of Fair Trading.

  1. No take-off in remedy numbers

As can be seen from the graph there is little sign so far that the CMA’s new arrangements for remedying competition problems at Phase 1 have resulted in significantly more remedies being proposed and accepted, the main objective of the change.

Of this year’s three Phase 2 decisions, one (Breedon Aggregates/Aggregate Industries) involved a divestment remedy and a price cap remedy where divestment was not possible.

  1. Small is beautiful

By contrast more SLC decisions than usual were deemed too small (so called ‘de minimis’ cases) to justify the costs of a Phase 2 enquiry, including one (WGSN/Stylesight) involving a market of over £6m – the largest so far since the de minimis policy was introduced.

In addition to these, four cases were cleared on de minimis grounds without a final decision being taken on their competition merits (Eden/Riders, Vitec/Autocue, Phonak Comfort/Audio and Key Publishing/Kelsey). This is not entirely new but has not happened on this scale before. Is it an approach that will be expanded further?

De minimis arguments were rejected in only two cases: Reckitt/K-Y and InterCity Railways/Intercity East Coast Rail Franchise. In the former, the CMA worried about the fact that similar deals might happen (so-called ‘replicability’) – a contrast to the ‘wait and see’ approach in some other cases.

Overall, the CMA seems to be taking a more expansive approach to de minimis policy. As the new agency has to demonstrate benefits to consumers that are at least ten times its costs (previously it was five times costs) it would not be surprising if the balance of its case portfolio (within mergers and beyond) was to shift.

  1. Horizontally-challenged

Horizontal ‘theories of harm’ remained the overwhelming focus for the CMA’s analysis as usual. However 23 cases also involved so-called ‘vertical theories’. Once again coordinated effects were out of fashion, featuring in only one Phase 1 case (Ballyclare/LHD).

  1. Exit closed. Please try an alternative route.

As usual, exiting asset/failing firm arguments cut little ice with the CMA at Phase 1 – rejected in all 11 cases in which they were put forward (one of the most interesting being Roanza/Enza).

At Phase 2, however, these arguments played a key part in the clearance of the Alliance Medical/IBA deal , despite representations by one of the party’s competitors that they would have bought or supported the target business in the absence of the merger.

  1. Feeling the pressure

‘Upward price pressure’ measures combining ‘diversion’ and financial margin data turned up in only one Phase 1 case (Asda/Coop) this year. This somewhat understates the importance of the price pressure approach, however, as measures of diversion carried weight in numerous cases (see number 12 below) and financial margins continued to be examined, even though (somewhat puzzlingly) that analysis is not always evident in the CMA’s published decisions.

  1. Signs of entry

While entry arguments were often made by parties and (as usual) were mostly rejected or superfluous, there were nevertheless three Phase 1 examples where the CMA gave weight to timely, likely and sufficient entry by rivals (Ballyclare/LHD, Care Monitoring and Management/Pantzel and Coopervision/Sauflon Pharmaceuticals).

In addition the potential for innovation to enhance competition was given a lot of weight in Cirrus Logic/Wolfson.

Rival entry was also said to meet the ‘timely, likely and sufficient’ criteria in the Phase 2 Omnicell/Surgichem clearance decision.

  1. A rare sighting

Countervailing buyer power arguments appear to have played a part in just one Phase 1 case (Herstal/Manroy), though the summary of the decision gives more weight to this than the main text of the decision.

  1. No smoke without smoking guns

Third party views, internal documents and bidding/tendering data (in that order) were particularly important sources of evidence, with problematic internal documents cited especially frequently in the Phase 1 SLC decisions (a notable example being Pure Gym/The Gym).

However…as every year, seemingly hottish documents do not always mean SLC – witness the Multipackaging Solutions/Presentation products case.

On evidence more generally it is worth noting that the CMA used its new information-gathering powers on 23 occasions at Phase 1, applied to third parties as well as to merging parties themselves.

  1. Competitor concerns do matter

Interestingly the Phase 1 SLC decisions strongly tended to feature complaints from both customers and competitors (as compared to the clearance decisions).

Once more the simple and often-heard ‘conventional wisdom’  that competitor complaints tend to encourage agencies to clear mergers turns out to be pretty wide of the mark.

  1. Best bids

One quarter of all Phase 1 cases involved the use of data on the bids and tenders that the parties had been involved in, primarily to examine the degree of diversion of business between the parties and others.

Particularly interesting cases include: Sonoco/Weidenhammer, Ballyclare/LHD, Multipackaging Solutions/Presentation Products, and Xchanging/Agencyport.

Two points stand out:

  • One – bidding analysis is not as straightforward as it may seem.
  • Two – the results (and the reading of past cases involving this type of analysis) need careful interpretation.

To sum up

In summary, while case numbers recovered, there were few if any that offered great potential for a major policy change. Forthcoming decisions look much more interesting in that regard!

Arguably the main questions raised are:

  • whether there will be a  greater use of Phase 1 remedies in future
  • where de minimis policy is heading and
  • whether the CMA is becoming more selective about the non-notified deals it calls in for investigation.

As usual, however, there have been many interesting lessons for parties about to merge in terms of how to assess their merger and the approach the CMA will adopt.

————————————-

Links to cases referred to above can be found on the CMA’s web pages .

 

2014 in Numbers : An Overview of UK Merger Control

150101-Number picture0  – The number of new merger prohibition decisions

1  – The number of appeals to the Competition Appeals Tribunal

3  – The number of Phase 2 decisions – all clearances

4  – The number of Phase 1 cases that investigated coordination between firms

5   –  The number of rail franchise cases examined

  –  The percentage of cases in which merger efficiencies or customer benefits were examined in some detail

13  –  The number of cases opened in August, the peak month of the year for new cases

16  –  The percentage of cases found not to qualify for investigation under the tests for jurisdiction

18  – The percentage of qualifying cases found to result in a substantial lessening of competition at Phase 1

19  – The percentage of cases in which parties argued that one of the businesses involved would exit if the merger did not proceed

20  – The percentage of cases qualifying for investigation under the turnover test

21  – The number of Phase 1 cases involving ‘vertical’ theories of harm

33 – The number of opened Phase 1 cases being investigated at the peak month-end of the year – October

45  – The percentage of cases involving completed deals

50  – The percentage of cases found to harm competition that were referred for Phase 2 investigation

53  – The percentage of cases in which one or more competitors to the merging parties expressed concerns about the deal

54  – The percentage of cases that investigated more than one theory of harm to competition

59 – The percentage of cases in which one or more customers of the parties expressed concerns about the deal

60  – The smallest share of supply for the parties to those deals found to harm competition

78  – The number of pages in the longest Phase 1 decision

82  –  The number of Phase 1 decisions announced

90  – The highest percentage share of supply of one of the parties to a merger that was cleared at Phase 1

6,500,000  – The size (in pounds) of the largest market deemed too small to justify a Phase 2 investigation (under the de minimis criteria)

———————————————————————————————————

Note: Numbers refer to those OFT, CC and CMA cases for which the decisions were announced during 2014 and for which relevant details were published as at 31/12/14.

© Adrian Payne 2015

 

 

Mergers at the CMA: What’s Up?

The Competition and Markets Authority completed its first six months of cases at the end of September.

Since mid-August it has been in the unusual position (as compared with its predecessor, the Competition Commission) of having no Phase 2 merger cases to consider.

As one FD put it to me last week: “What’s up at the CMA? –  I thought there has been a merger boom going on”

Well, actually, in the UK there hasn’t !…………. (as the latest official statistics show).

There are in fact several different elements to the answer, as the following picture shows.

Figure 1: UK Mergers: April 1st to September 30th 2014

141006-merger-funnel

On the face of it some of these figures appear very striking.

No wonder some competition practitioners are already talking of a significant change of approach by the CMA, compared to its predecessor agencies.

Indeed change would not be at all surprising because:

  1. New timetables and procedures are revising what is possible at Phase 1 (including pre-notification) in some cases.
  2. Putting Phase 1 and Phase 2 into a single organisation gives incentives to optimise resources across the two phases that did not exist when the OFT and Competition Commission were separate agencies.

But, not so fast….

….whatever changes do eventually emerge, there is a real danger of drawing premature conclusions.

Six months of case data is far too short a period from which to infer changes in underlying trends. And bear in mind that the number of cases involved at the lower end of the funnel is small.

Looking at the individual cases involved and comparing them with previous years, it is just as likely that the six month figures reflect the mix of cases in terms of sector, size and the pattern of competition issues raised.

With this in mind it is worth remembering that many of the parameters in the ‘funnel’ shown above can and do vary widely from year to year.

To take just one example: the following chart shows how the proportion of qualified cases (i.e. those that have met the jurisdictional criteria) found to raise competition problems at Phase 1 has varied since the Enterprise Act came into force. The latest year’s figure is in fact not much lower than for six of the previous ten years.

Figure 2: Phase 1 ‘Substantial Lessening of Competition’ findings as a proportion of qualified merger cases

141003-SLC per cent

I’ll be returning to this subject in a future article so do drop me a line if you have thoughts.

In the meantime, with eleven Phase 1 decisions due for announcement over the next six weeks, the picture could change rapidly.

Then again…..

 

——————————————————————————————————————–

Click here for the latest UK merger control statistics.

My article on the one CMA merger reference so far is here.

My ‘A-Z of 2014 UK Merger Analysis’ presentations are taking place in January. Please get in touch if you are interested in arranging one for your firm.

 

One Question That Can Make Or Break A Merger Case

Over the past ten years hundreds of companies have made a case to the UK competition authorities seeking approval for their merger.

The way in which cases are argued and presented before the authorities varies widely. As a result, there are many lessons that can be learned from past practice, good and bad.

In this brief article I focus on one important aspect that crops up again and again. It concerns the following question:

–       How to make a case that fits together well?    –

A question to ask early

It is clearly a question that is best asked (and answered) early on in the process of developing the case for a merger.

Rubik

And yet, in the hurly burly of the deal, it is a question that is easy to overlook –  or to ask too late in the process – or to answer only partially.

Instead what tends to happen in these circumstances is that the different elements of the case emerge and evolve as the process unfolds.

Such an approach may have the advantage of flexibility  – but it also carries the risk that, once the walls are built, the roof won’t fit.

And that is indeed what happens in a surprising number of cases, resulting in

  • Wasted time and cost
  • A longer investigation –  and – in some cases
  • A poorer overall outcome for the merging parties.

A challenging question

Perhaps one of the reasons the question doesn’t always receive the timely attention it deserves is that there are a number of different aspects to it.

Here are the five I look at:

1. Are the arguments put forward internally consistent ?

  • When the individual building blocks of a case do not hang together well the credibility of the overall case suffers and the process takes longer, while inconsistencies are probed.
  • To take a simple example that has arisen many times: how well does the argument that acquisition is the only path sit with the proposition that entry into the business is easy and inexpensive?

2. How to ensure the case put forward remains consistent throughout the process ?

  • Changing tack on a major plank of a case during the process always raises questions in the agencies’ minds.
  • ‘Why”, they understandably ask, “should the new story we are being told be more credible than the old one (which we were assured was accurate)?”

3. How well is the overall story for the merger supported by the evidence advanced?

  • When these clash the agencies rightly question not only the particular piece of evidence concerned but – sometimes more damaging –  the coherence of the wider story.
  • For example: If the overarching story is that exit of the target company is inevitable in the absence of the deal, how well does this tally with the actions of the target in the past year or two?

4. Do the theory and evidence match?

  • When theory and evidence collide which, if either, will remain standing?
  • For example: where a case relies heavily on the theory that only two suppliers are needed to ensure a highly competitive outcome, how credible is that theory given the number of suppliers that customers actually shortlist?

5. How well integrated are the business, economic and legal arguments?

  • A particular risk is where separate submissions from legal advisers and economic advisers contain material that does not fit together well (or at worst is contradictory).
  • Another is when key analysis is identified and put forward too late in the day.

A powerful first step

The very process of asking each of these questions in a structured way, and with the right tools and techniques, is a powerful first step to:

  • understanding the real strength or weakness of the case right from the start
  • prioritising the evidence-gathering and analysis needed to make the strongest case
  • deciding how best to present the case
  • managing the five risks/opportunities I outlined above.

Even where it turns out that there is not an immediate or clear answer to one or more of these questions, identifying that fact can be crucial to managing the resulting risk, as well as the overall case.

                                                                                               © Adrian Payne 2013

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Material in this article is drawn from my training course – ‘Making a Merger Case: Best Practice and Common Pitfalls’.

The course examines lessons from over 500 past cases in each of the following areas: case preparation, case strategy, research and analysis, communication and presentation, and resources.