Why agencies diverge in their reviews of global deals

Why are antitrust authorities around the world, reaching substantially divergent conclusions when evaluating the same transaction? Even though major antitrust regulators are achieving largely consistent conclusions and follow a similar methodology, there is a good number of cases that "break the rule" of uniform decision-making. Transactions that were unconditionally cleared in one jurisdiction required remedies in another, and authorities adopted remedies with different scope. This study will take a deep dive into 13 international transactions that triggered divergent outcomes. Starting with the "usual suspects," differences in facts and legal frameworks, the authors will reveal what other reasons led to divergent outcomes. The discussion will cover less apparent factors, like differences in competition analysis, differences in institutional structure and procedure, as well as national policies and interests. The article will shed some light on the lack of uniformity in outcomes of the merger review in the EU, US and China and provide greater understanding of the reasons that may lead to divergence in specific cases.