UK Competition Regulator Requires Lindab to Divest Sites Following Antitrust Probe
Swedish ventilation company Lindab (LIAB.ST) has been ordered to sell two of its sites in the U.K. following concerns raised by the country’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The regulator found that Lindab’s acquisition of domestic competitor HAS-Vent could lead to higher prices and a reduction in competition within the market for ventilation systems.
According to Reuters, the CMA’s in-depth investigation revealed a “substantial lessening of competition” in the supply of circular ducts and fittings, particularly in areas around Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent. As a result, Lindab must divest all four of its sites in these regions and propose potential buyers for the regulator’s approval. This move is intended to safeguard competition in local markets, preventing price increases that could negatively affect customers.
Read more: UK Prime Minister Pressures CMA for Growth-Focused Antitrust Regulations
The acquisition in question, announced in October of the previous year, saw Lindab bolster its U.K. sales and production capacity through the purchase of Birmingham-based HAS-Vent. Lindab currently operates through its U.K. subsidiaries, Lindab U.K. and Ductmann, which together manage 24 branches. Both companies are involved in the manufacturing and distribution of ventilation products.
Per Reuters, last month the CMA had hinted that the sale of overlapping Lindab and HAS-Vent branches in specific local areas would be a suitable solution. This divestiture aims to restore competitive conditions, ensuring that customers in the Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent regions are not subject to inflated prices due to diminished market competition.
This decision underscores the regulator’s ongoing efforts to ensure that mergers and acquisitions do not undermine fair competition, particularly in industries where consolidation could have a direct impact on pricing and product availability.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand