1. The term “merger” denotes in this paper either the pooling of control over business activities of the enterprises involved, or the acquisition of control by one enterprise over the business activities of an other, in both cases irrespective of the legal processes by which such results were achieved.

2. Stacey, Nicholas, Mergers in Modern Business (Hutchinson, London, 1966), pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

3. Weston, J., The role of mergers in the growth of large firms (University of California Press, 1963), p. 85.Google Scholar

4. Penrose, E. T., The theory of the growth of the firm (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1959), pp. 156 ff. esp. pp. 179/80.Google Scholar

For a contrary opinion: Stelzer, I. M., Hearings on Economic Concentrations before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, US Senate, Part I, p. 181Google Scholar, and Kitching, J., “Why do mergers miscarry”, Harvard Business Review, 11–12 1967.Google Scholar

5. J. N. Behnnan, Some patterns in the rise of the multinational enterprise (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1969), p. 15.

6. Ch. Kindleberger, P., The Theory of Direct InvestmentGoogle Scholar, Lecture 1, in “American Business Abroad, Six Lectures on Direct Investment” (New Haven & London, Yale Un. Press, 1969) p. 9.Google Scholar

7. J. Bossons, K. J. Cohen and S. R. Reid hold that in the USA, growing from within may pay off faster. In their opinion this is proved by the fact that out of all the American companies examined (478) the companies involved in mergers only showed a rise in their stock prices of 307 per cent between 1951 and 1961, while the companies not involved in mergers displayed a rise of 680 per cent in the same period. This could establish the presumption that the first category was less profitable because of their involvement in mergers.

Statement of S. R. Reid for the Sub-Committee on Anti-trust and Monopoly, US Senate, Hearings on Economic Concentration, Part 5, p. 1914 ff.Google Scholar

Their study does not seem conclusive since the sample was small and it could not be established that the merging companies would have been better off without a merger.

P. Sargant Florence comes to the same conclusions as Bossons c.s. on management's conduct for the UK industry.

Hearings on Economic Concentration before the Sub-Committee on Anti-trust and Monopoly, US Senate, Part 7, p. 3574.

Equally: Lewis, and Stewart, , The Managers, A new Examination of the English, German and American Executive (Mentor Books, 1961). Chapter 9.Google Scholar

8. Penrose, E. T., op. cit., pp. 186–9.Google Scholar

9. Equally: Ch. Kindleberger, P., Hearings on International Aspects of Antitrust, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, US Senate, Part 1, 27 04 1966, p. 153.Google Scholar

10. Studies “The problem of the concentrations in the Common Market’, Series Competition No. 3 (European Communities, 1966), p. 8 (translation H. W.).Google Scholar

11. Council of Ministers, ‘Second Programme for the economic medium-long term policy’, Official Gazette, No. L 129 of 30 05 1969, Council 69/157, p. 200 (translation H. W.).Google Scholar

12. Sanders, P., ‘Studies on the Preliminary Project for a Statute for the European Company’, Series Competition No. 6 (Edition European Communities, 1967).Google Scholar

13. Official Gazette, Nr. C 39, of 22 03 1969, pp. 1 and 7.Google Scholar

14. Address of R. W. McLaren, Assistant Attorney General, in Los Angeles, 27 May 1969 (CCH Trade Regulations Reporter 1969, par. 50,244), explaining the US position. In his address, “Looking ahead in anti-trust” delivered in Chicago on 8 October 1969 (CCH Trade Regulation Reporter 1969, par. 50, 258) he repeated the view that foothold acquisitions by the conglomerates in concentrated industries would be welcomed as pro-competitive.

15. Prof. Uri in Le Monde of 23 02 1965.Google Scholar

16. Merger guidelines announced by the US Department of Justice, Enforcement Policy for Sect. 7 Clayton Act, 30 May 1968, CCH Trade Regulation Reports 1968, par. 4430, points No. 9 and 15.

17. Reddaway, W. B., Effects of UK Direct Investment Overseas, Final Report (Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 334 and 338.Google Scholar

18. By virtue of implementing Section 30(2) and (3) of the Exchange Control Act, 1947.

19. This requirement, in so far as applicable to nationals of the member States of the EEC, was recently challenged by the European Commission.

20. For the USA; Merger guidelines announced by the US Department of Justice, Enforcement Policy for Sect. 7 Clayton Act, of 30 May 1968 (CCH Trade Regulation Reports No. 363, 3 06 1968)Google Scholar, 31 pages. For the UK: Mergers, a guide to Board of Trade practice (HMSO, 1969), 82 pp.Google Scholar

21. Financial Times, 1 08 1969.Google Scholar

22. Hymer, S. H., Hearings on International Aspects of Anti-Trust before the Subcommittee on Anti-trust and Monopoly, US Senate, Part 1, 20 04 1966, pp. 19–32.Google Scholar

23. Ch. Kindleberger, P., Hearings on International Aspects of Anti-trust before the Subcommittee on Anti-trust and Monopoly, US Senate, Part I, 27 04 1966, pp. 152–3.Google Scholar

24. From the context it is clear that the term “direct investment” is used by Kindle berger to denote merger operations as well.

25. Watkins, Report, p. 389 and p. 40.Google Scholar

26. Hellman, R., “US Direct Investment in Europe” in “The Multinational Corporation in the World Economy” edited by Rolfe, S. E. and Damm, W. (Praeger Publishers, New York-London, 1970), p. 80.Google Scholar

27. R. Hellman, ibid., p. 81.

28. The Norwegian government eventually vetoed the IT and T offer, saying that serious and attractive alternatives had emerged.

29. Executive Order No. 11, 387 of 1 January 1968, Commerce Departmental Order 184-A (15 CFR Part 1,000) re. annual limits on capital outflows and reinvested earnings (Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 17–54, 3 01 1968).Google Scholar

30. Annual Report on Exchange Restrictions of the IMF (1968), p. 450.Google Scholar

31. Goyder, D. G., “Public Control of Mergers”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 28 (1965), p. 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Mr. v.d. Groeben, , Competition Policy as part of the Economic Policy in the Common Market.Google Scholar Address to the European Parliament on 16 June 1965 (EEC Publication, June 1965). Abridged version in Monthly EEC Bulletin, 1965, No. 7, p. 14Google Scholar; Studies “The problem of concentrations in the Common Market”, Series Competition No. 3 (Brussels, 1966).Google Scholar

33. These amendments were embodied in the Act of 15 September 1965 which entered into force on 1 January 1966. (Bundesgesetzblatt I, Nr. 53 of 22 09 1965, p. 1363.)Google Scholar

34. Ley sobre prácticas restrictivas de la competencia of 20 July 1963, Official Gazette (Boletín Official del Estado) 1963, No. 175, p. 11, 148.Google Scholar

35. The Monopolies Commission, The Dental Manufacturing Co. Ltd, or The Dentists' Supply Co. of New York and The Amalgamated Dental Co. Ltd. A report on the proposed mergers (HMSO, 1966).Google Scholar

36. The Monopolies Commission, The British Motor Corporation Ltd and the Pressed Steel Company Ltd. A report on the merger (HMSO, 1966), p. 16.Google Scholar

37. Ibid., p. 17.

38. The Monopolies Commission, Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd and Radio Rentals Ltd (HMSO, 1968), pp. 63 and 64.Google Scholar

39. The Monopolies Commission, The Rank Organisation Ltd and The De La Rue Company Ltd. A report on the proposed acquisition (HMSO, 1969).Google Scholar

40. Rank-De La Rue case, ibid., p. 29.

41. The Times of 14 06 1969.Google Scholar

42. Hansard Report of Debates in the House of Commons for 17 04 1969, col. 1361.Google Scholar

43. Mergers: a Guide to Board of Trade practice (HMSO, 1969), p. 1.Google Scholar

44. Bock, B., Mergers and Markets, The Conference Board Study No. 93 (1966), p. 217.Google Scholar

45. US v. Monsanto Co., Farbenfabriken Bayer AG, and Mobay Chemical Co., CCH Trade Cases 1967, par. 72,001 (W. D. Pa. 1967).Google Scholar

46. US v. Aluminium Ltd, Alcan Aluminium Corp. and National Distillers and Chemical Corp. (DCNJ, 1966)Google Scholar, CCH Trade Cases 1966, par. 71,895.

47. US v. Aluminium Ltd, Alcan Aluminium Corp. and National Distillers and Chemical Corp. (DCNJ, 1968)Google Scholar, CCH Trade Cases 1968, par. 72,631.

48. US v. Atlantic Richfield Co. and Sinclair Oil Corp. (SDNY, 1969), CCH Trade Cases 1969, par. 72,715.

49. US v. Atlantic Richfield Co. and Sinclair Oil Corp. (SDNY, 1969)Google Scholar, CCH Trade Cases 1969, par. 72,716 (297 F. Supp. 1060) and par. 72,728 (297 F. Supp. 1075).

50. US v. The Standard Oil Co. (Ohio) et al. (DC Ohio 1969)Google Scholar, CCH Trade Cases 1970, par. 72,988, CCH Trade Regulation Reporter 1969, par. 45,069, Case No. 2076.Google Scholar

51. FTC v. Procter and Gamble Co., US Sup. Ct. 1967Google Scholar, 386 US 568, 87 Sup. Ct. 1244, CCH Trade Cases 1967, par. 72,061.

52. Cf. Behrman, J. N., op. cit., pp. 98 ff.Google Scholar

53. These special provisions for regulated industries are enumerated in the Report on the 51 ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 392/3.

54. R. v. Canadian Breweries Ltd (1960)Google Scholar, O.R. 601, R. v. British Columbia Sugar Refining Co. Ltd and BC Sugar Refinery Ltd (1962), 38 CPR 177.Google Scholar

55. Gosse, R., The Law on Competition in Canada (The Carswell Company Ltd, Toronto, 1962), pp. 179, 204.Google Scholar

56. Interim Report on Competition Policy of the Economic Council of Canada (Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1969), p. 82.Google Scholar A dissenting view was expressed by ProfWatkins, M., who criticized this report (The Globe and Mail, 4 09 1969).Google Scholar

57. These fears were already expressed by the Report of the French Delegation to the ECSC negotiations (1951) and in the Avis et Rapports of the French Conseil Economique (1951).

58. See Introduction to the Wagenführ Report (1963).Google Scholar

59. Address of J. Linthorst Homan, member of the High Authority to the European Parliament, June 1965, ECSC-Bulletin, 1965, No. 57, p. 6.Google Scholar

60. EEC Official Gazette, 1960, pp. 1078/79.Google Scholar

61. It is debatable whether these measures are not contrary to the Articles 4, Section c and 67 ECSC.

62. 15th General Report on the activities of the ECSC, 1967, pp. 197/198.Google Scholar

63. Prieur, R., La Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier, 1962, pp. 321/322.Google Scholar

64. Krawielicki, R., Das Monopolverbot im Schuman-Plan, 1952, pp. 63/4.Google ScholarReuter, P., La Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier, 1953, p. 217.Google ScholarPrieur, R., op. cit., 1962, pp. 305/6.Google Scholar

65. ECSC Official Gazette of 11 05 1954, Nr. 9.Google Scholar

66. ECSC Bulletin, 1964, Nr. 47, p. 40.Google Scholar

67. Loi No. 66–1008 of 28 December 1966 “relative aux relations financières avec l'étranger” (Official Gazette of 29 December 1966).

68. This Decree has been supplemented by Decree No. 68–1021 of 24 November 1968 instituting foreign exchange control, and also by Decree No. 69–264 of 21 March 1969 (Official Gazette, No. 69–33 of 03 1969, p. 27)Google Scholar, which makes the provisions equally applicable to French direct investments abroad. A government order of 27 January 1967, supplemented by order of 24 November 1968 and also by order of 21 March 1969, clarifies the Decrees No. 67–78, No. 68–1021 and No. 69–264, The government order of 21 March 1969 in its turn has been clarified by a circular letter of 21 March 1969 (Official Gazette, 03 1969, No. 69–33, pp. 31 ff.).Google Scholar

69. Cf. Articles 52–8 EEC Treaty, General Programme EEC Council, 18 December 1961 (Official Gazette, pp. 36/62 of 15 01 1962)Google Scholar supplemented by Article 221 EEC Treaty.

70. European Commission v. French Government, case 66–69, Official Gazette, No. C 156/12 of 8 12 1969.Google Scholar

71. For more examples pertaining to transportation and mining, see Balekjian, W. H., Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment in the EEC (Manchester University Press, 1967), pp. 31–41.Google Scholar

72. Watkins Report, pp. 387–8.

73. This Law was supplemented by Law No. 4171/1962 on the Measures to Stimulate the Development of the Country's Economy. The latter is applicable to both foreign and Greek capital employed in productive investment, and provides for a number of tax and other incentives.

74. This law, dated 26 December 1957, was published as a chapter of the “Ley General de Presupuestos del Estado” under the name of “Modifications en el sistema fiscal”. This law was thereafter always referred to as the “Ley de Reforma Tributaria”.

75. Ley de Reforma del Sistema Tributario of 11 June 1964 (Official Gazette of 14 06 1964).Google Scholar

76. This requirement is embodied in the Tax Reform Act of 26 December 1957 (Article 135), the Executive Order of 12 April 1960 (Normes 6 and 7), the Tax Reform Act of 11 June 1964 (Article 107), the Decree of 27 July 1964 and the Executive Order of 5 April 1965 (Article 1).

77. The Economist, 2 08 1969, p. 58.Google Scholar

78. This Decree is based on the Act No. 66–1008 of 28 December 1966 which authorizes the government to put foreign direct investments under control in order to ensure the defence of the national public interest.

79. Answer of the European Commission to question No. 215/68 of Apel, M.Official Gazette, No. C 6/3 of 22 01 1969.Google Scholar

80. Watkins, Report, p. 386.Google Scholar

81. Executive Order 11387 of the President. This Order is implemented by Foreign Direct Investment Regulations issued by the Secretary of Commerce.

82. Hellman, , “Auslandsinvestitionen und europäische Souveränität”, Europa-Archiv, 1968, pp. 679 ff.Google Scholar

83. See in this respect the article on “Extraterritorial application of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” in Col. Law Rev., Vol. 69, 01 1969, No. 1, pp. 94–111.Google Scholar

Rehbinder, E., “Neuere Entscheidungen zur extraterritorialen Anwendung des Securities Exchange Act von 1934” in Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebs-Beraters, 1969, pp. 425 ff.Google Scholar

84. Müller-Henneberg-Schwartz, , Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen und Europäisches Kartellrecht (2. Edition, 1963), p. 1169Google Scholar; Langen, Eugen, Kommentar zum Kartellgesetz (1958), p. 410Google Scholar; Rehbinder, E., Extra-territoriale Wirkungen des deutschen Kartellrechts (Baden-Baden, 1965), p. 107Google Scholar; Schwartz, I., Deutsches Internationales Kartellrecht (1962), pp. 22/8, in particular p. 24.Google Scholar

85. Markert, K., “Die Anwendung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen auf internationale Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen” in Zehn Jahre Bundeskartellamt, Beiträge zu Fragen und Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet des Kartellrechts (Carl Heymanns Verlag KG. 1968), pp. 209–12.Google Scholar

86. Report D. Bt.-Committee, 2. Wahlperiode 1953, Annex to Bt.-Drucksache 3644, p. 40.Google Scholar

87. Markert, K., loc, cit., pp. 227–8Google Scholar. Jaenicke, G., ILA Conference Report, (Helsinki. 1966), p. 93.Google Scholar

88. Schönherr, F., Oesterreichisches Kartellrecht (Brüder Hollinek, Wien, 1966), pp. 12/13.Google Scholar

89. The factual data on this theme have largely been taken from the International Law Association Conferences' Reports of 1964 (Tokyo), 1966 (Helsinki) 1968 (Buenos Aires) and 1970 (The Hague) as well as from the study by Ellis, J. J. A., “Legal Aspects of European Direct Investments in the United States in Rolfe & Damm”, op. cit., Chapter 3, pp. 52–71.Google Scholar

90. P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 10 p. 18.Google Scholar

91. US v. Aluminium Company of America et al., 148 F. 2d. 416 (1945).Google Scholar

92. Verzijl, in “The Controversy regarding the so-called Extra-territorial effect of the American Antitrust Laws”, Ned. Tijdschrift voor Int. Recht (1961)Google Scholar, does not accept this restriction.

93. US v. Scophony Corp., 333 US 795, 1948Google Scholar; US v. US Alkali Exp. Ass., CCH Cases 1946–1947, par. 57,481Google Scholar; US v. Imp. Chem. Ind. Ltd, 100 F. Supp. 504, SDNY 1951Google Scholar; US v. Watchmakers of Switzerland, 133 F. Supp. 40, SDNY 1955Google Scholar; in re Electr. & Musical Ind. Ltd, 155 F. Supp. 892, SDNY 1957Google Scholar; in re Siemens & Halske A. G., 155 F. Supp. 897, SDNY 1957.Google Scholar

94. Report of 51st ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), pp. XXVIII–XXIX.Google Scholar

95. ProfMcDougal, M. S. in Report of 51st ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), p. 330.Google Scholar

96. Report of the 51st ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), pp. 403–5 and pp. 577–88.Google Scholar

97. In re Grand Jury Subpoena addressed to First National City Bank, 396 F. 2d. 897 (CA-2 1968), CCH Trade Cases 1968, par. 72,507.

98. It may be interesting to note that Boehringer & Soehne, who were involved in the penal proceedings in the US (and in the EEC) against the international quinine cartel, did not move either.

99. Economic Competition Act of 1958, Section 39.

100. As in the United Kingdom, which enacted the Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Act in 1964 (Section 2).

101. As in France which issued the Law No. 68–678 of 26 July 1968 on “La commu nication de documents et renseignements à des autorités étrangères dans le domaine du commerce maritime” (Official Gazette of 27 07 1968, pp. 7, 267).Google Scholar

102. Watkins Report 1968, p. 390.Google Scholar

103. British Nylon Spinners Ltd v. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd (1953) 1 Ch. 19 (CA 1952).Google Scholar

104. US v. ICI, 105 F. Supp. 215, 237 (SDNY, 1952).Google Scholar

105. This Report of 5 July 1968 to the US President was released by the Department of Justice on 21 May 1969. It examines anti-trust policy and contains recommendations for new anti-trust legislation.

106. Zijlstra, and Goudzwaard, . “Economic policy and competition problems in the EEC and the member States”, Studies, Series on Competition No. 2. Edition European Economic Community (1966).Google Scholar

107. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. US, 356 US 1, 4 (1958)Google Scholar as well as the White House Task Force Report (p. I. 1)Google Scholar, which used the same language.

108. Scott, J. C. and Yablonski, S. K., “Transnational mergers and joint ventures affecting American exports”, The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. XIV, Spring 1969, p. 33.Google Scholar

109. Rolfe, S. E., The International Corporation (1969), p. 82 (ICC Background Report).Google Scholar

110. Schwartz, , Report of the 51st Conference of ILA (Tokyo, 1964), p. 328Google Scholar. Reprinted in International Aspects of Antitrust. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1966), p. 549.Google Scholar

111. International Aspects of Antitrust, Hearings, ibid. (1966), p. 497.

112. Watkins Report, Chapter II, Section 7, Nr. 48.Google Scholar

113. US v. Standard Oil Co. (NJ), CCH Trade Cases 1960, par 69, 849 (SONY, 1960).Google Scholar

114. Rolfe, S. E., op. cit., p. 79.Google Scholar

115. Watkins Report, p. 49.Google Scholar

116. Fugate, , Foreign Commerce and the Antitrust Laws, 1958, p. 17 (more detailed on pp. 249 ff.).Google Scholar

117. US v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 253 F. Supp. 129 (N. D. Cal. 1966)Google Scholar, aff'd per curiam, 385 US 37 (1966).

118. US v. Gillette Co., CCH Trade Regulation Reporter 1968, par. 45068 Case 1988 (D. Mass. 1968).

119. It was announced that FTC had decided not to seek a injunctive relief after negotiating a protective agreement with Litton designed Adler-Triumph as a sufficiently seperate entity, CCH Trade Regulation Reporter, 1969, par, 18,828.Google Scholar

120. US v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 92 F. Supp. 947 (D. Mass. 1950).Google Scholar

121. US v. National Lead Co., 63 F. Supp. 513 (SDNY, 1945)Google Scholar; 332 US 319 (1947).

122. US v. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, 100 F. Supp. 504 (SDNY, 1951)Google Scholar; 105 F. Supp. 215 (1952).

123. US v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 83 F. Supp. 284 (N. D. Ohio 1949)Google Scholar; 341 US 593 (1951).

124. US v. Standard Oil Co. (NJ) et al., CCH Trade Cases, 1960Google Scholar, par. 69,849 (SDNY, 1960). On 24 January 1968 the Department of Justice moved to dismiss its 1953 civil anti-trust suit against Standard Oil (Cal.) and Socony Mobil and made various changes in the consent decrees previously entered into with Standard Oil (NJ), Gulf and Texaco.

125. Berghoff, J. C., “Antitrust Aspects of Joint Ventures,” The Anti-trust Bulletin, Vol. IX, No. 2, 1964, p. 231.Google Scholar

126. Dean, , “The Impact of Anti-trust Regulation upon the Multinational Corporation”, SAIS Review, 1969, Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 6.Google Scholar

127. International Aspects of Anti-trust, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the US Senate Commission on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., 30 08 1966, pp. 489–91, 508.Google Scholar

128. Ibid., p. 491.

129. US v. Monsanto Co., Bayer AG and Mobay Chemical Co., CCH 1967 Trade Cases, par. 72,001 (W. D. Pa. 1967).

130. International Aspects of Anti-trust, US Senate Hearings 1966, p. 498.Google Scholar

131. US v. Penn-Olin Chem. Co., 217 F. Supp. 110 (D. Del. 1963), 378 US 158 (1964), 246 F. Supp. 917 (1965), 387 US 906 (1967).

132. Report of 51st ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), p. 588.Google Scholar

133. Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LII, No. 1337 of 8 02 1965, p. 188Google Scholar (Press release 7, dated 18 January 1965).

134. OECD Document C (67), 53 Final of 10 10 1967.Google Scholar

More detailed: Markert, K.. “Recent developments in international antitrust cooperation”, Anti-trust Bulletin, Vol. XIII, Summer 1968, pp. 361 ff.Google Scholar

135. Cf.: EFTA-Doc. No. 47/65 of 29 October 1965; Wiebringhaus, H., “Le Droit des Ententes dans le cadre de la CEE et de l'EFTA”, Revue du Marché Commun, 1966, p. 763.Google Scholar

136. Schwartz, , Report on the 51st ILA Conference (Tokyo, 1964), p. 328.Google Scholar

137. As an example can be quoted the order of the Federal Maritime Commission to dissolve the Calcutta Shipping Conference by 12 January 1968 as a reaction to the refusal of foreign governments to allow their nationals to comply with the demands of the FMC to produce the information which ‘has prevented (the FMC) from fulfilling (its) statutory responsibilities’.