The CMA has accepted a remedy from Carpenter and Recticel following concerns that Carpenter’s merger with Recticel could harm manufacturers and lead to a worse deal for shoppers on items like mattresses and kitchen sponges.
US-based Carpenter agreed to buy Belgian firm Recticel’s global engineered foams business in a €656 million (Euros) deal announced in 2021. The firms both supply engineered foam products used to make household goods such as mattresses, upholstery and kitchen sponges from plants located in the UK.
Following an initial Phase 1 investigation, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) identified competition concerns in 3 foam-related markets in the UK (the supply of comfort foam, unconverted technical foam, and converted comfort foam), and referred the deal for an in-depth Phase 2 investigation in July 2022.
Related: FTC Concludes Merger Of Polyurethane Foam Producers Was Anticompetitive
At the outset of the Phase 2 investigation, Carpenter and Recticel conceded that the deal raised competition concerns and asked the CMA to “fast-track” the case to the assessment of a remedy that could address those concerns.
The CMA accepted the businesses’ request and consulted, in September, on the merging business’ proposal to sell the majority of the UK arm of Recticel’s engineered foams business to address the competition concerns raised by the deal.
The CMA’s final report confirms that the deal could reduce competition. This means that, without remedies to restore this loss of competition, the deal could have damaged the competitiveness of UK-based manufacturers that rely on foams to make their products, as well as leading to less choice and a poorer outcome for consumers.
The CMA has also concluded that, with minor modifications, the remedy proposed by the merging businesses will fully replace the loss of competition arising from the merger. This means that Carpenter will now be required to sell the majority of the UK arm of Recticel’s engineered foams business to an independent third-party, approved in advance by the CMA, with the capabilities to ensure that the business remains as competitive as it is at present.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh