This article investigates how antitrust agencies should structure the disclosing of information about efficiency gains from interested parties (merging firms, and competitors) in merger control. We analyze the particular case of a horizontal merger with danger of foreclosure, where welfare can decrease either due to insufficient efficiency gains (efficiency defense) or due to excessive efficiency gains if the competitor exits (effi- ciency offense). The first result is that evidence from competitors is not required unless the ex-ante market shares of the merging firms exceed a threshold. Second, we support the role of advocacy of the parties. The burden of proof for efficiency defense should rest in the insiders (merg- ing firms) whereas the burden of proof for efficiency offense should rest in outsiders (competitors). Finally, it is optimal to make insiders report first and outsiders second and any communication among parties has to be prohibited
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)