Hogan Lovells
Hogan Lovells

Antitrust Competition & Economic Regulation
24 January 2013
See note below about Hogan Lovells

Antitrust authorities get tough on non-compete clauses in M&A transactions


Yesterday, the European Commission imposed large fines on Telefónica and Portugal Telecom for entering into an illegal non-compete clause as part of a transaction.


Recent European Commission enforcement action in relation to non-compete clauses demonstrates the importance for companies to check carefully that non-compete obligations in transaction documents comply with competition law.


What happened to Telefónica and Portugal Telecom?


In 2010, Telefónica acquired sole control of the Brazilian mobile operator, Vivo, which was previously jointly owned by Telefónica and Portugal Telecom. In the context of this transaction, the parties inserted a clause in the purchase agreement indicating that Telefónica and Portugal Telecom would not compete with each other in Spain and Portugal as between the end of September 2010 and the end of 2011. The European Commission opened an investigation in January 2011, and the parties terminated the non-compete agreement in early February 2011.


The European Commission held that, by virtue of the non-compete agreement, Telefónica and Portugal Telecom had deliberately agreed to stay out of each other's home market. The European Commission considered that this preserved the status quo in Spain and Portugal, which hindered the integration process of the EU telecoms sector and prevented the parties from competing with each other for offering clients the most advantageous conditions. Despite the short duration of the infringement, which was only 4 months, the European Commission fined Telefónica €66,894,000 and Portugal Telecom €12,290,000.


Strikingly, the investigation and yesterday's decision did not originate from a third party complaint. The European Commission investigated the case on its own initiative. This demonstrates that the European Commission is willing to take action even in the absence of a complaint where they believe non-compete agreements may reduce competition. 


Other recent European Commission action taken against non-compete obligations


In June 2012, the European Commission accepted commitments from Siemens AG and Areva SA to reduce the product scope and duration of a non-compete obligation.

In 2001, Siemens and the legal predecessor of Areva established a joint venture in which they combined their respective activities in relation to nuclear power plants. The Shareholders' Agreement between the parent companies included a non-compete obligation which applied not only for the life of the joint venture but also for 11 years following the withdrawal of a shareholder. The non-compete obligation covered both the core products and services of the joint venture as well as other products for which the joint venture was not active and/or acted only as a reseller of Siemens. In 2009 Siemens withdrew from the joint venture, and filed a complaint to the European Commission regarding the non-compete obligation.


The European Commission adopted a preliminary assessment which stated that the non-compete obligation might breach Article 101 TFEU due its excessive product scope and duration. The European Commission accepted commitments from Siemens and Areva which reduced the duration of the non-compete obligation relating to core business to a period of three years, and which provided a total release from the non-compete obligation in relation to the non-core business of the joint venture.


Similar enforcement by the U.S. antitrust agencies


In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice have aggressively pursued non-compete obligations, both in the acquisition and joint venture context and generally between competing firms. For example, in November 2012, the Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit against Ebay Inc., alleging that it violated the U.S. antitrust laws by entering an agreement not to recruit or hire employees of Intuit Inc. The Antitrust Division settled similar lawsuits in 2010 against Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm, and Pixar. And, most recently, in January 2013, the Federal Trade Commission required two sellers of bulk bleach to terminate an agreement, that was part of a 2010 transaction, by one seller not to sell bulk bleach in a specific geographic region for a period of time.


Key message


These recent European Commission and US cases underline the importance for companies involved in acquisitions and joint ventures to check carefully the scope and duration of any non-compete obligations to confirm that they comply with competition law. This is a global exercise. Telefónica's fine concerned a non-compete obligation in a transaction document related to a Brazilian aquisition. Any non-compete obligation must be directly related to and reasonably necessary for the implementation of a transaction, or risk investigation and potential fines from antitrust authorities worldwide.


                                                                                                           • Back to top


see below



Visit us at www.hoganlovells.com

 Hogan Lovells Key Antitrust, Competition & Economic Regulation Contacts


Mariette Swart

+31 (20) 5533 757


Mark Gately

+1 (410) 659 2742


Adrian Emch

+86 (10) 6582 9488


Jun Wei

+86 (10) 6598 8601


Roy Zou

+86 (10) 6598 8603


Eckhard Bremer

+49 (30) 726 115 353


Andreas Grünwald

+49 (30) 726 115 320


Christoph Wagner

+49 (30) 726 115 322


Paris Anestis

+32 (2) 505 0973


Jean-Michel Coumes

+32 (2) 505 0945


Jacques Derenne

+32 (2) 505 0902


Ciara Kennedy-Loest

+32 (2) 505 0911


Matthew Levitt

+32 (2) 505 0903


Alix Müller-Rappard

+32 (2) 505 0904


Nicolas Pourbaix

 +32 (2) 505 0954


Christopher Thomas

+32 (2) 505 0929


Christopher Noblet

+36 (1) 505 4480


Juan Carlos Pondal

+58 (212) 265 9305


Bruno Ciuffetelli

+58 (212) 267 7376


Kerstin Pallinger

+49 (211) 1368 529


Martin Sura

+49 (211) 1368 390


Jan Eggers

+49 (40) 41993 316


Marc Schweda

+49 (40) 41993 120

Hong Kong

Henry Wheare

+852 2840 5087


Lesley Ainsworth

+44 (20) 7296 2181


Helen Bignall

+44 (20) 7296 2385


Charles Brasted

+44 (20) 7296 5025


Susan Bright

+44 (20) 7296 2263


Angus Coulter

+44 (20) 7296 2965


Paul Dacam

+44 (20) 7296 2615


Karman Gordon

+44 (20) 7296 2503


Nicholas Heaton

+44 (20) 7296 5919


Christopher Hutton

+44 (20) 7296 2402


Suyong Kim

+44 (20) 7296 2301


Kate Rees

+44 (20) 7296 5077


Casto González-Páramo

+34 (91) 3498 249


Daniel Gonzalez

+1 (305) 459 66


Ekaterina Petrova

+7 (495) 933 3000


Christoph Wünschmann

+49 (30) 726 115 353

New York

Steven Edwards

+1 (212) 918 3506 

New York

Sandy Litvack

+1 (212) 918 8271

New York

Eric Lobenfeld

+1 (212) 918 8202

New York

Eric Stock

+1 (212) 918 8277

North Virginia

Michele Harrington

+1 (703) 610 6173

Palo Alto

Robert Hawk

+1 (650) 463 4008


Ombline Ancelin

+33 1 5367 1601


Michel Debroux

+33 1 5367 4789

Pierre de Montalembert
+33 1 5367 1800

Miroslav Dubovsky
+420 (2) 21411 729


Gianluca Belotti

+39 (06) 675823 02

San Francisco
Megan Dixon

+1 (415) 374 2305

San Francisco

Michael Shepard

+1 (415) 374 2310

Andrew McGinty

+86 (21) 6122 3866

Robert Gago

+48 (22) 5292 972

Washington DC

Logan Breed

+1 (202) 637 6407

Washington  DC

Benjamin Holt

+1 (202) 637 8845

Washington  DC

Philip Larson

+1 (202) 637 5738

Washington  DC

Thomas Leary

+1 (202) 637 5662

Washington  DC

Robert Leibenluft

+1 (202) 637 5789

Washington  DC

Joseph Krauss

+1 (202) 637 5832

Washington DC

Janet McDavid

+1 (202) 637 8780

Washington  DC

William Monts

+1 (202) 637 6440

Washington  DC

Corey Roush

+1 (202) 637 5731

Washington  DC

Robby Robertson

+1 (202) 637 5774

Washington DC

David Saylor

+1 (202) 637 8679

About Hogan Lovells
Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses.

Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG, United Kingdom
Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004, United States of America
This publication is for information only. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.

So that we can send you this email and other marketing material we believe may interest you, we keep your email address and other information supplied by you on a database. The database is accessible by all Hogan Lovells' offices, which includes offices both inside and outside the European Economic Area (EEA). The level of protection for personal data outside the EEA may not be as comprehensive as within the EEA. To stop receiving email communications from us please click here.

The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members.

For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see www.hoganlovells.com.

Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients.

© Hogan Lovells 2014. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising.