Regulatory risks during M&A projects: A comparison of European, UK and US frameworks

Abstract

Mergers and acquisitions represent a dynamic process of corporate culture and strategy. Empirical evidence indicates a high rate of failure of M&A's to create value for the shareholders of the firms. Many see merger activity as an expression of strong change forces. Through restructuring strategies, firms want to become more efficient and gain possible synergies and cost reductions. The role of antitrust regulation should not restrict these competitive forces. On the other hand, a regulatory framework is essential in order to gain consumer welfare and control possible competition violation and cartel creation. The antitrust laws protect competition as a means to promote efficiency and thereby enhance consumer welfare. They condemn mergers that will enable the merged firm to restrict output and raise prices, because such mergers reduce efficiency, making life easier for the merged firm and its rivals. In this paper, we will describe the institutional arrangements behind the regulatory frameworks in the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union, in order to present and compare regulations and laws in the countries that represent major M&A volume (in terms of deal value and size) and we will also provide the criteria and procedures for mergers and acquisitions in these areas.