Merger Control Effective tool for a stable economy

 

Merger Threshold poses a challenge towards merger control where it recognizes the absence of a discussion that still need formal treatment. It gives an outlook towards the ideal procedural structure of merger control, and different practices adopted by multiple jurisdictions to comprehend the several decisions based on jurisdictional thresholds.  The past studies conducted have explored the key areas related to merger control, the substantial question of improving the regulatory methods is still unanswered.

Merger control has become an established tool of competition law and policy in many countries around the world. Securing a competitive market structure by ex ante avoiding concentrations that are likely to significantly impede effective competition is believed to contribute substantially to the overall welfare benefits created by antitrust policy. However, despite these undisputed benefits, the merger control process undoubtedly also creates a substantial amount of costs. In addition to direct expenses by the antitrust authority and the affected firms, substantial indirect costs such as opportunity costs of time (for compliance and litigation) or costs triggered by delaying the completion of the merger must be taken into account in a cost-benefit assessment.

The tailoring and implementation of effective remedies become relevant when the anti trust authority concludes its competitive effects analysis with the finding that anticompetitive effects are likely to materialize post-merger. While the respective firms aim at minimizing the implementation of both structural and behavioral remedies (while still solving the identified competition issues), the antitrust authority would like to impose remedies that are effective in restoring competition in the relevant market post-merger.