www.db-comp.eu

                                                                   

The COCOO-EU Merger DB Doctrine: A Strategic Model for MATOIPO Warfare

Platform URL: http://db-comp.eu/ (Note: This is an independent, non-official aggregator, which changes our strategic approach.)

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the EU Merger Case Law DB. It is critical to note that this is an independent, non-official database that aggregates public data on EU merger cases. This makes it a powerful Noisefilter and reconnaissance tool, but all findings must be verified against official sources like EUR-Lex or the EC’s own portal. We will use this platform to rapidly identify precedents, analyze remedy strategies, and understand the Commission’s thinking in MATOIPO (Mergers, Acquisitions, Takeovers, IPOs) cases, which is a core COCOO strategic objective.[1, 2]

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of this database is governed by the most incisive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking up cases; we are reverse-engineering the EU’s merger control apparatus.

  • Precedent as a Predictive Tool: The mind maps identify the need to understand how the EC will treat a MATOIPO.[1] This database is our primary tool for finding precedents. By analyzing past decisions in the same sector, we can predict the Commission’s likely concerns (e.g., specific theories of harm), the types of remedies they will accept, and the chances of a deal being cleared, prohibited, or waved through with conditions.
  • The “Remedy” Playbook: Successful navigation of EU merger control often depends on offering the right remedies (e.g., divesting a specific business unit). This database allows us to build a “remedy playbook” by identifying which types of remedies have been accepted by the Commission in similar past cases. This is invaluable intelligence for advising clients or for challenging a proposed remedy as insufficient.
  • StealthConsolid Market Definition: To prove a StealthConsolid strategy, we must understand how the Commission defines the “relevant market”.[1] This database allows us to search past merger decisions by NACE code. The full text of these decisions contains detailed analysis of market definition, which we can use as a direct precedent to frame our own arguments about a niche market being illegally consolidated.
  • WPI (Public Interest) as a Merger Argument: We will analyze how “public interest” arguments, such as environmental benefits or industrial policy goals (WPI), have been used by parties in past merger cases and how the Commission has treated them. This allows us to craft more sophisticated arguments that go beyond pure competition analysis.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

This platform’s power lies in its structured database design, which allows for highly specific filtering of merger cases.

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality: Based on the screenshot and the platform’s design, the key search rules are:
    • Keyword Search (Fulltext): Allows searching for keywords across the text of the decisions.
    • Filtering by NACE Code: The most powerful feature. Allows us to isolate all merger cases in a specific industrial sector (e.g., C21.20 - Manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations).
    • Filtering by Decision Type: Allows us to focus on specific outcomes: Clearance (Phase 1), Clearance with remedies (Phase 1), Prohibition, Referral, etc.
    • Filtering by Legal Basis: Allows filtering by the specific article of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR).
    • Filtering by Date and Case Number: Standard filters for finding specific known cases or cases within a certain timeframe.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this database to predict and influence the outcome of major corporate transactions.

  • For MATOIPO Analysis & Prediction:

    • “A merger has been announced between [Company A] and [Company B] in the [e.g., telecommunications] sector. Show me all past EU merger decisions with NACE code J61. Which cases were cleared with remedies, and what were those remedies?”
    • “What is the Commission’s track record for Prohibition decisions? Which sectors and market structures are most likely to result in a deal being blocked?”

  • For StealthConsolid & Market Definition:

    • “We are building a case about consolidation in the ‘private veterinary services’ market. Find all merger decisions with NACE code M75.00. How did the Commission define the relevant geographic and product markets in these cases? The reasoning in these decisions is a direct precedent we can use.”

  • For Challenge Discretion & USP Origination:

    • “Find all cases cleared with Phase 1 remedies where the parties were represented by the law firm [e.g., Freshfields or Skadden]. What types of remedy packages do they typically negotiate? This provides competitor intelligence on legal strategy.”
    • “Are there any cases where the Commission accepted a ‘public interest’ argument (e.g., ‘failing firm defence’ or environmental benefits) to clear a merger that might otherwise have been problematic? This provides a basis for a USP to a company looking to make a difficult acquisition.”

4. The COCOO-EU Merger DB Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this database to generate actionable MATOIPO intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Merger Precedent” Audit

  • Objective: Before a major merger is announced or when analyzing a live deal, to create a dossier of relevant precedents to predict the Commission’s likely course of action.
  • Execution:
    1. Define the Market: Using our ShowVoc doctrine, identify the precise NACE code(s) for the market(s) affected by the merger.
    2. Filter by NACE Code: On the EU Merger Case Law DB, run a search filtered by the identified NACE code(s).
    3. Filter by Outcome: Run the search multiple times, filtering by Decision Type each time (Clearance, Clearance with remedies, Prohibition) to segment the results.
    4. Analyze the Precedents: For the most relevant past cases, analyze the decisions. What was the Commission’s theory of harm? What market share thresholds triggered concerns? If remedies were required, what were they (e.g., divestment of a specific brand, sale of a production facility)?
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Merger Risk Report” that allows COCOO to advise clients (or act on its own behalf) with a high degree of confidence about the likely outcome of a deal. It transforms strategic advice from guesswork into a data-driven prediction based on the Commission’s own history.

Playbook B: The “Remedy Strategy” Playbook

  • Objective: To identify successful and unsuccessful remedy strategies from past cases to inform our approach to a live merger negotiation.
  • Execution:
    1. Isolate Remedy Cases: Filter the database for all cases with Decision Type: “Clearance with remedies (Phase 1)” or “Clearance with remedies (Phase 2)”.
    2. Filter by Sector: Narrow the results by the NACE code relevant to our current case.
    3. Full-Text Search for Remedy Type: Use the Fulltext search to find cases discussing specific types of remedies. Example: "divestiture", "access remedy", "licensing commitment".
    4. Analyze the Details: Review the full decisions for these cases. How were the remedies structured? What were the conditions? Were there any “up-front buyer” requirements?
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates a library of proven remedy designs. It allows COCOO to enter negotiations with the Commission armed with a menu of potential solutions that have been accepted in the past, increasing the chances of getting a difficult deal cleared and demonstrating a level of sophistication that enhances our reputation as expert mediators.

Playbook C: The “Market Definition as a Weapon” (StealthConsolid)

  • Objective: To find official EC decisions that define a niche market in a way that supports our StealthConsolid theory.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify the Niche Market: From our own research, identify a niche market undergoing consolidation (e.g., “specialist medical diagnostic laboratories”).
    2. Find the NACE Code: Use ShowVoc to find the closest NACE code(s) (e.g., Q86.90 - Other human health activities).
    3. Search the Merger DB: Filter the database by this NACE code.
    4. Keyword Search for Specifics: Use the Fulltext search within these results for keywords that describe the specific niche. Example: "diagnostic", "laboratory", "pathology".
    5. Extract the Definition: Find a past merger decision where the Commission, in its wisdom, has explicitly defined the “relevant product market” as, for example, “the market for esoteric pathology testing services in Belgium.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This extracted text is pure gold. It is an official decision by the EU’s competition authority defining the market in precisely the narrow, segmented way we need. This precedent can be used in a future complaint to the CMA or another authority to argue that our StealthConsolid theory is not our own invention, but is based on the established analytical framework of the European Commission itself.

Leave a Reply