Under what circumstances does the Commission require that an entire package of assets be divested to a single acquirer only?
This is both an issue of viability and competition. Operations of a certain scale and/or scope may be necessary for the buyer of the assets to operate them efficiently or to have the incentive or means to operate them for anything but a short term. In certain industries, such as retail operations, it may be necessary to maintain or restore competition for the buyer of the divested assets to have a substantial “footprint” within the relevant geographic markets; this presence may make the buyer more likely to seek to increase or maintain “brand awareness” through advertising, or make it more likely that the buyer can obtain significant internal distribution efficiencies or cost savings. This requirement has been imposed in general in cases in which there were concerns that dividing up the assets to be divested among several buyers would not fully restore the competition that existed before the merger.
Related Questions
- Are there cases in which the package of assets to be divested comprises an ongoing business, but the Commission has nonetheless required an buyer up front?
- Under what circumstances does the Commission require that an entire package of assets be divested to a single acquirer only?
- Why does NaviPlan Standard automatically create non-registered assets when retirement goals require additional savings?
