What are Merger Control Regulations?

Merger control regulations are laws put in place by governments to oversee mergers and acquisitions between companies. Their primary goal is to maintain competitive markets by preventing mergers that could significantly reduce competition or create monopolies while MENA Merger Control Firm generally requires companies to notify and seek approval from regulatory authorities before completing certain types of mergers that vary across jurisdictions. These regulations vary across jurisdictions but generally require companies to notify and seek approval from regulatory authorities before completing certain types of mergers.

• Merger control regulations are a cornerstone of competition law, designed to prevent market distortions that could arise from unchecked consolidation of businesses. They typically apply to transactions where companies combine assets, operations, or ownership, potentially altering market dynamics. By scrutinizing mergers, authorities ensure that competitive markets thrive, benefiting consumers through lower prices, increased innovation, and wider product choices.
• These regulations often distinguish between different types of mergers, such as horizontal (between competitors), vertical (between companies in different stages of the supply chain), and conglomerate (between unrelated businesses). Each type may raise unique competition concerns that regulators assess based on market structure, the potential for market power, and the likelihood of consumer harm.
• Jurisdictions worldwide have their merger control frameworks, ranging from mandatory pre-merger notifications to voluntary filings. Understanding the specific requirements and thresholds applicable in each jurisdiction is crucial for businesses planning international expansions or cross-border mergers.

Thresholds and Notification Requirements

Most jurisdictions have specific thresholds that trigger merger control obligations. These thresholds are based on factors such as the companies' combined revenues or market shares within a particular market. If a proposed merger meets or exceeds these thresholds, the companies involved are typically required to notify the relevant competition authority and obtain clearance before proceeding.

• Thresholds triggering merger control obligations vary widely among jurisdictions and may include factors such as the combined turnover or market share of the merging entities within specific markets. These thresholds help authorities prioritize reviews for transactions likely to have significant competitive impacts.
• Notification requirements typically mandate that merging parties submit detailed information about the transaction, including market shares, financial data, and potential competitive effects. Early engagement with competition authorities allows parties to assess regulatory risks and plan accordingly, potentially influencing deal structures or timelines.
• Failure to meet notification obligations can result in severe consequences, including fines and legal challenges to the merger's validity. Understanding and complying with these requirements is essential for avoiding delays and uncertainties that could jeopardize the success of a merger or acquisition.

Review Process and Timeline

Once a merger notification is submitted, competition authorities conduct a thorough review to assess its potential impact on competition. This review process may involve gathering information from the merging parties, competitors, customers, and other stakeholders. The timeline for review varies depending on the complexity of the merger and the jurisdiction but can range from several weeks to several months.

Key Objectives of Merger Control

The objectives of merger control regulations include safeguarding consumer interests, promoting market efficiency, and ensuring a level playing field for all businesses. By evaluating mergers, authorities aim to prevent anticompetitive behaviour that could lead to higher prices, reduced choice, or lower quality products and services for consumers.

• Safeguarding consumer interests is a primary objective of merger control regulations. By preventing mergers that could lead to reduced competition, authorities aim to maintain fair pricing and quality standards across industries. This protection extends beyond immediate consumer benefits to include long-term considerations of innovation and economic efficiency.
• Promoting market efficiency involves ensuring that resources are allocated optimally within an economy. Competitive markets encourage firms to innovate, invest, and operate efficiently, driving overall economic growth. Merger control helps preserve this efficiency by fostering conditions where new entrants can compete and thrive alongside established players.
• Ensuring a level playing field supports smaller businesses and new market entrants. By preventing monopolistic practices, merger control regulations allow startups and smaller firms to compete based on merit rather than facing insurmountable barriers created by dominant market players.

Remedies and Consequences

In cases where a merger is found to substantially lessen competition, competition authorities may impose remedies or conditions to address concerns. These remedies could include divestitures of certain assets or businesses to preserve competition. Failing to comply with merger control regulations can have serious consequences, including fines, invalidation of the merger, or other legal penalties.

Credit: Tom Fisk on Pexels

Navigating merger control regulations is a critical aspect of any merger or acquisition strategy. By understanding the basics such as the objectives, thresholds, review process, and potential consequences you can better anticipate regulatory challenges and ensure compliance. Whether you're a multinational corporation or a small business, staying informed and seeking expert legal advice when necessary can help you successfully navigate the complexities of merger control regulations and achieve your business objectives while operating within the bounds of the law.

In conjunction with the execution of the final merger agreement, investment affiliates under the management of SLR Capital Partners, the firm's current lender, have made a decision to transform around $81.0 million of term debt into preferred equity of the recently established entity. Additionally, Perceptive will inject $50.0 million of fresh preferred equity capital into the company, a portion of which will be utilized to finance the merger consideration and cover specific payments related to the closing process. SLR will maintain $40.0 million of term debt.

Vapotherm, headquartered in Exeter, New Hampshire, USA, is a publicly traded company specializing in the development and production of advanced respiratory technology. The company focuses on creating non-invasive technologies to provide respiratory support for patients suffering from chronic or acute breathing disorders.

The Ropes & Gray team included mergers & acquisition partner Sarah Young, employment partner Renata Ferrari, tax partner Alyssa Kollmeyer, and IP transactions partner Raj Banerjee.

The IP landscape is constantly changing as technology advancements continue to shape the products and services consumers and businesses use and enjoy. Two decades ago, Napster and pirated MP3s disrupted and upended the music distribution model and, after copyright laws caught up and addressed online streaming, today’s music and video streaming platforms and revenue models emerged. Two years ago, the buzz was all about NFTs and what IP rights are implicated by digital content tied to a token on the blockchain, and I was busy doing NFT deals with celebrities and brand owners such as Katy Perry, Dionne Warwick and the World Poker Tour. While the NFT hype may be subsiding (except in the online game/metaverse space), the current buzz is now around Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, which appear be here to stay. While I have been advising clients on AI technologies and data licensing models for at least 5 years, the courts are just now starting to address the copyright and other implications from the use of existing content to train these AI models. The U.S. Copyright and Patent & Trademark Offices are not recognizing copyright protections for AI-generated images or patent rights for AI-created inventions. That view may be too narrow if human contributions and improvements are not recognized and cannot be protected and monetized.

What are the key considerations regarding the protecting and enforcement of IP rights relating to the development of new and emerging technology?

Each technology advancement brings its own unique challenges for innovators hoping to protect the fruits of their efforts and investment.  As mentioned, it can take time for laws to catch up. In the interim, companies will need to use and rely on the traditional IP avenues (copyright, patent, trademark and trade secrets) to protect and enforce their IP rights in new technologies they are developing and planning to commercialize. As legal advisors, we have to be creative to fit new technologies into existing legal and contractual models. As an example, developers who use open source AI software tools to develop portions of their proprietary software codebase may not be able to obtain copyright protection for the overall software product if they are unable to separately identify the human and AI-created code, or the inventor for patent purposes.  And even then, under current Copyright Office and PTO guidance, that still may not be enough. Trade secret protections (maintaining confidentiality where practical) will remain important as a fallback, but AI adopters need to be mindful that prompts and inputs into an AI tool are generally not confidential and could result in the loss of trade secret protection. In light of the lag time, or even inability to secure comprehensive legal protections for new technologies (e.g., with AI today), innovators will need to weigh the ramifications of lessened or no protection against being first to market and capturing a significant market share before others catch up.  Companies (as technology developers and users) should also develop an AI Usage Policy for their employees and providers to limit the risk of improper usage in proprietary technologies as well as the risks associated with AI-generated content.

What is the scope and purpose of technology transfer agreements, and how can intellectual property rights be best protected for companies involved with licensing, distributing and commercializing new products and technology?

Written agreements, whether to document the development and acquisition of technology and IP rights, or to protect IP and technology in products that are being distributed and commercialized, are necessary and vital in order to obtain, protect and define the scope of the innovator’s IP and limit the rights provided to the customer. It is very important that companies have agreements with their service providers that include express assignments of all IP rights in work product and deliverables.  Simply paying for the work is not enough to transfer ownership of the IP rights, as many companies have discovered. This is important not only for acquiring technology but also for marketing collateral, logos and website content. In addition to defining and retaining ownership rights, commercialization agreements need to include use restrictions, defined but limited warranty obligations and disclaimers, and limitations of liability that are appropriate for the nature of the products and services being provided as well as how they will be used.  Indemnification from third party infringement and other claims is also important. Customers expect indemnification from the technology provider, but it is also important that the customer provide indemnification for its use of the product or service, which may implicate third party IP rights for user content processed using the product and privacy rights for user information being collected or processed by the customer.

What strategic measures can be taken for firms looking to commercialize their intellectual property?

Strategic IP planning needs to begin on day one, making sure that all IP rights utilized in the company’s products are owned or properly licensed. This involves having appropriate IP and confidentiality agreements in place with founders, employees, consultants and service providers who contribute to the development or improvement of the technology. Companies should have patent and IP policies for tracking internal product development to make sure that copyrights, patent rights and trademark rights that are important to the company’s current and future product strategies are appropriately documented and registered.

Providers and users of cloud services and SaaS solutions are facing ever increasing and changing privacy and legal issues in cloud computing, including new legal and security requirements and the risks of storing sensitive data in the cloud. What are the main challenges facing cloud companies?

When we began developing the first privacy policies for ecommerce companies over 20 years ago, they were simple disclosures of what information was being collected and how it would be used. Prior to special applicability laws such as HIPAA (patient information) and GLB (financial information), there were few statutes or regulations apart from some early FTC guidance based on existing consumer protection laws.  Now, new statutes are being passed almost monthly, and cloud and web service providers need to consider multiple state laws as well as international privacy laws such as the GDPR. Privacy policies (and data use practices) need to address and comply with all of the applicable laws and need to be updated regularly as the laws change. As part of this overlapping patchwork of privacy and data security laws, there are increasing requirements for companies to implement sophisticated data security systems and protections designed to prevent data breaches, along with internal tracking, audit and other legal compliance measures. Typically, in addition to a broad compliance with law obligation, a separate data processing agreement is attached or signed along with each cloud service agreement, usually mandated by the customer’s internal policies. As SaaS and cloud services begin to incorporate AI capabilities and features into their service platforms, they need to have terms and conditions in place that cover or limit the use of AI, and similarly, customers require protections to be added to cloud services agreements to protect against potential liability from that usage.

About Michael Plumleigh

Michael Plumleigh is a partner and head of the IP & Tech Transactions practice at M&H LLP. Mike has been advising clients on intellectual property, technology and media matters for over 30 years, and offers the perspective of having worked in-house as well as serving as outside counsel for hundreds of technology, media and life science/biotech companies.

Mike has extensive experience advising early stage and established companies on complex corporate partnering, M&A, licensing and intellectual property transactions; AI data services, software license, SaaS and cloud services agreements; OEM and distribution channel agreements; product development, manufacture, supply and marketing agreements; branding, IP commercialization and portfolio management; and counseling on open source software, Internet digital media, export, and international privacy laws.

Prior to joining M&H, Mike was Director of Legal Affairs at Via Licensing Corp. (part of Dolby Labs), where he was responsible for the development and negotiation of standards-based patent licensing programs (patent pools), monetizing IP on behalf of many of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers and technology innovators. Prior to Via, Mike was Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary at Critical Path, Inc., a leading provider of mobile messaging and digital media solutions and services.

Before going in house, Mike was a partner and co-founder of the Technology Transactions and Privacy practice groups in the San Francisco office of Cooley LLP and a partner in the Technology Group at Brobeck Phleger & Harrison LLP.

Prior to pursuing law, Mike was a professional musician, performing and touring with the Buddy Rich and Harry James Orchestras, doing shows and recording work in Los Angeles, and engagements with jazz greats Clark Terry, Mel Tormé, Joe Williams and Louie Bellson. More recently Mike has performed with Jimmy Buffett, Kix Brooks, the Zak Brown Band, Steve Miller and Bob Weir.

About M&H LLP

M&H LLP is a premier corporate, employment and technology law boutique located in Silicon Valley and New York. M&H advises entrepreneurs, startups, investors, emerging growth and established technology, life science, clean tech, digital media and other companies at all stages of development.

Michael Plumleigh
Partner, M&H LLP
525 Middlefield Road, Suite 250
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel: 650.331.7005
Email: mplumleigh@mh-llp.com
https://mh-llp.com/attorneys/
michael-plumleigh/

Published by: www.lawyer-monthly.com