competitionlaw

The saga regarding the divestiture of Crédit Agricole (CA) stake in Banca Intesa ( see my previous post of 1 June 2009 ) is far from being over. To address the concerns raised by the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) on whether the merging parties complied with the condition imposed on the divestiture of branches to CA, CA and Assicurazione Generali (AG) have notified a new and downsized version of the shareholder agreement about the stake they have in BancaIntesa. The new agreement comes immediately in force, replaces the older one and will be valid for a period of three years. The new agreement does not contain any clause for tacit renewal of the agreement as the old agreement did. The new agreement sets the CA and AG commitments to prior consultation aimed at preserving and increasing the value of their stakes in Banca Intesa. Interestingly, the mechanism for prior consultation shaped by the new agreement is much slimmer than that of the old agreement. Under the old agreement, CA...

In the space of the same year this is the second time the Italian Competition Authority or ICA had to ascertain whether Trambus, the Rome local bus operator incumbent, complied with Article 8 of the Act 287/90 (AGCM, case SP114-Trambus Engineering-Trambus Electric). Article 8 stipulates that monopolist undertakings or undertakings by law entrusted with the provision of services of general economic interest shall set up separate companies to carry out economic activities on markets other than those on which they trade within the monopoly situation or to provide the above services. They have to priory notify the ICA the incorporation of undertakings and the acquisition of controlling interests in undertakings trading on the different markets referred. In case of non notification the ICA shall impose a fine of up to Euro 51,645. In this case Trambus created two fully owned subsidiaries, Trambus Engineering and Trambus Electric, trading in markets other than the provision of local bus...