Intercontinental Exchange, Inc v Competition and Markets Authority [2017] CAT 6 (6 March 2017)

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc v Competition and Markets Authority [2017] CAT 6 (6 March 2017)

The Tribunal held that the CMA did not err in law or act irrationally in excluding the New Agreement from the counterfactual, in its assessment of the competitive effects and remedies, or in issuing the Direction. The CMA acted within its statutory powers, applied the correct legal standards, and its evaluative...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] CAT 6
Parties
Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.; Respondent: Competition and Markets Authority; Intervener: Nasdaq Stockholm AB
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Competition Authority Merger Decision / Judgment on Consolidated Applications Challenging CMA Merger Report and Direction
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Substantial Lessening of Competition, Divestiture Remedies, Counterfactual Analysis, Proportionality of Remedies, Ultra Vires, Directors' Duties, Remedies Proposal Assessment
Competition Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Merger Control Substantial Lessening of Competition Divestiture Remedies Counterfactual Analysis Proportionality of Remedies +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

Applicant

Competition and Markets Authority

Respondent

Nasdaq Stockholm AB

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Competition Authority Merger Decision / Judgment on Consolidated Applications Challenging CMA Merger Report and Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CMA erred in excluding the New Agreement from the counterfactual analysis
  2. 2 Whether the CMA's assessment of partial foreclosure benefits and costs was rational
  3. 3 Whether the CMA lawfully rejected the applicant's remedies proposal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the CMA did not err in law or act irrationally in excluding the New Agreement from the counterfactual, in its assessment of the competitive effects and remedies, or in issuing the Direction. The CMA acted within its statutory powers, applied the correct legal standards, and its evaluative judgments were not manifestly without reasonable foundation. The applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • The applications challenging the CMA's merger report and Direction are dismissed.
  • No order for quashing the CMA's decisions or for other relief.