Claim efficiencies or offer remedies? An analysis of litigation strategies in EC mergers
Efficiency defence and merger remedies are key components in most merger control regimes. Although in many jurisdictions both the provision of efficiency-related evidence and remedy offers are at the merging firms' discretion, most previous works have only analysed them separately. This paper is an attempt to empirically model the system of decisions that firms face in merger litigation where they are allowed to choose what combination of efficiency claims and settlement offers to make. The main novelty of this work is the use of data from company reports on the merger-generated synergy expectations signalled to shareholders, which allows the direct empirical testing of some of the assumptions and findings from previous works. Evidence is presented that the current EC merger control regime is incapable of extracting information from firms on their efficiency expectations and the identity and experience of the legal advisor plays a key role in this; that pre-merger synergy expectations enhance the willingness to offer remedies; and finally, that the cost of delay plays a central role in designing firms' litigation strategy, especially when these costs exceed the cost of the remedy.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Massimo MOTTA & Helder VASCONCELOS, 2003.
"Efficiency Gains and Myopic Antitrust Authority in a Dynamic Merger Game,"
Economics Working Papers
ECO2003/23, European University Institute.
- Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2005. "Efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a dynamic merger game," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 777-801, December.
- Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2004. "Efficiency Gains and Myopic Antitrust Authority in a Dynamic Merger Game," CEPR Discussion Papers 4175, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Cosnita, A. & Tropeano, J.P., 2008.
"Negotiating remedies : revealing the merger efficiency gains,"
200803, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
- Cosnita, Andreea & Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "Negotiating remedies: Revealing the merger efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 188-196, March.
- Andrea Cosnita & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2005. "Negotiating remedies : revealing the merger efficiency gains," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v05047, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Apr 2006.
- Andreea Cosnita & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2005. "Negotiating remedies : revealing the merger efficiency gains," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00194906, HAL.
- Lagerlof, Johan N.M. & Heidhues, Paul, 2005.
"On the desirability of an efficiency defense in merger control,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 803-827, December.
- Johan N. M. Lagerlöf & Paul Heidhues, 2004. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 04/24, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London, revised Oct 2004.
- Heidhues, Paul & Lagerlöf, Johan N. M., 2003. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," CEPR Discussion Papers 3841, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Johan Lagerlöf & Paul Heidhues, 2002. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-08, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119, March.
- Hall, Alastair R & Rudebusch, Glenn D & Wilcox, David W, 1996.
"Judging Instrument Relevance in Instrumental Variables Estimation,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(2), pages 283-98, May.
- Alastair R. Hall & Glenn D. Rudebusch & David W. Wilcox, 1994. "Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 94-3, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997.
"Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments,"
Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
- Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1994. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," NBER Technical Working Papers 0151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Paul Sergius Koku & Anique A. Qureshi, 2006. "Analysis of the effects of settlement of interfirm lawsuits," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 307-318.
- Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-54, July.
- Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2001. "Event Studies and the Law - Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2475, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jan 2002.
- John Shea, 1997.
"Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Measure,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 348-352, May.
- John Shea, 1996. "Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Measure," NBER Technical Working Papers 0193, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2000.
"Consumer Surplus vs. Welfare Standard in a Political Economy Model of Merger Control,"
CIG Working Papers
FS IV 00-15, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 829-848, December.
- Neven, Damien J & Röller, Lars-Hendrik, 2000. "Consumer Surplus vs. Welfare Standard in a Political Economy Model of Merger Control," CEPR Discussion Papers 2620, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Damien J. NEVEN & Lars-Hendrik RÖLLER, 2000. "Consumer Surplus vs. Welfare Standard in a Political Economy Model of Merger Control," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 00.24, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Omar M. G. Keshk, 2003. "CDSIMEQ: A program to implement two-stage probit least squares," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(2), pages 157-167, June.
- Bougette, Patrice, 2010. "Preventing merger unilateral effects: A Nash-Cournot approach to asset divestitures," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 162-174, September.
- Bhagat, Sanjai & Brickley, James A. & Coles, Jeffrey L., 1994. "The costs of inefficient bargaining and financial distress *1: Evidence from corporate lawsuits," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 221-247, April.
- Fields, M. Andrew, 1990. "The wealth effects of corporate lawsuits : Pennzoil v. Texaco," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 143-158, September.
- Sanjai Bhagat & Roberta Romano, 2002. "Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 141-168, January.
- G. S. Maddala & Lung-Fei Lee, 1976. "Recursive Models with Qualitative Endogenous Variables," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 525-545 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:30:y:2012:i:6:p:578-592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.