Latest from Cleary Antitrust Watch

In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by the team of lawyers who represented Illumina in its landmark appeal to the European Court of Justice, which overturned the Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction under the EU Merger Regulation over below-threshold mergers on September 3, 2024. Mario Siragusa, Enrique

On September 3, 2024, in a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice – the EU’s highest court – ruled in favor of Illumina in its challenge to the EC’s unprecedented assertion of jurisdiction over a transaction that met no notification thresholds at either EU or Member State level.

On September 5, 2024, the European Commission (“Commission”) published a Staff Working Document[1] summarizing the outcome of an evaluation of Regulations 1/2003 and 77/2004, which govern the procedural framework for enforcing EU competition rules under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (“EU Antitrust Enforcement Framework”).  On the same day, the Commission adopted a report on

In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Martijn Snoep, Chair of the Dutch Authority for Consumers & Markets. Their conversation covers an array of topics, including the role of sustainability in antitrust enforcement, merger control, consumer protection, digital regulation, and more.

Listen below, or select from

In the latest instalment of our Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Barry Hawk, one of antitrust law’s leading jurists and commentators.  Their conversation covers an array of topics, including the U.S. antitrust enforcement under President Biden, the evolution of EU competition law, the proliferation of antitrust agencies, digital regulation, and much

On July 29, 2024, the Court of Justice issued its preliminary ruling in case C-298/22 Banco BPN v. BIC Português and others.[1]  The Court confirmed that a “standalone” exchange of information between competitors – meaning that the information exchange in question constitutes the examined conduct in itself and is not ancillary to any other