The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Squire Patton Boggs

Work +32 2 627 11 11
Fax +32 2 627 11 00

Brian Hartnett

Work +322 627 11 01
Squire Patton Boggs

Work Department

Competition - Antitrust




Competition: EU and global

Within: Competition: EU and global

Squire Patton Boggs' team serves as 'true business partners in what is a highly technical area', delivering 'personal and constructive advice' on cartel investigations and related litigation; its work has spanned areas such as optical disc drives, refrigeration compressors, LCD screens and graphite electrodes. Praised for its 'in-depth knowledge and experience', the group 'can react to urgent matters'. Team head and managing partner¬†Brian Hartnett¬†('a hugely experienced litigator'),¬†Oliver Geiss¬†and¬†Will Sparks¬†represented Chilean airline Latam in a successful appeal of the EC's finding¬†of a global cartel in the air freight sector. Also notable is the firm's excellent credentials in state aid cases, as was illustrated when Hartnett and Geiss successfully represented¬†Frucona KoŇ°ice in a landmark appeal at the European Court of Justice. On the transactional front, the team acted as antitrust counsel to SK Global Chemicals concerning its acquisition of two business units from Dow for $370m. Lubrizol, Kuraray and Quanta Storage Inc are among other clients. Associate¬†Tatiana Siakka, whose practice is split between London and Brussels,¬†joined from¬†K&L Gates LLP.

[back to top]

IHL Briefings

If your firm wishes to publish IHL Briefings or articles, please contact Antony Dine on +44 (0) 207 396 9315 or


Merger Review on Both Sides of the Atlantic:†a comparison

December 2016. By Brian N. Hartnett

Although there are over 75 countries in the world with merger control regimes that, for the most part, apply to foreign-to-foreign transactions, the US and EU remain the key jurisdictions when assessing global mergers.  This is the case once a transaction is announced and notified, but maybe even more so when legal teams of companies are assessing the chances of successfully implementing a planned transaction. The reason is that other competition authorities look towards Brussels and Washington.  Unless there are local specifications, it is unlikely that a country would stop a global deal if both the US and EU have approved it.  When assessing the risk of a transaction, the first question will inevitably be: can we get it through in the US and the EU?  In the not too distant future that question may also include China but, for the most part, the Chinese review remains more a question of effects on the deal timetable, not whether the deal is viable.  While the US and EU reviews are very similar, there are a number of key differences that we have sought to highlight below. [Continue Reading]

Merger control in the European Union: an overview

December 2016. By Brian N. Hartnett

All in-house counsel will be aware of the merger control rules that grant competition authorities the power to monitor, assess and even modify or prohibit M&A activity.  There are very few jurisdictions around the world that do not enforce some form of merger control and, with the notable exception of Luxembourg, all 28 EU Member States can require the notification of mergers.  This requirement can be triggered by sales into a Member State, irrespective of where a business is registered or based.  As such, being familiar with the merger control rules is important not only for companies that are located in the EU, but for all companies that conduct business in the region. [Continue Reading]

Back to index

Legal Developments in Belgium

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to