Appeal against transaction between Sligro and Heineken rejected

Houthoff represented Sligro before the Rotterdam District Court in a procedure in which Sligro's competitors (through Maxxam) challenged the ACM's clearance of the acquisition by Sligro of a part of Heineken's wholesale activities.

This matter concerns a rare appeal of a merger clearance decision, in which Maxxam challenged the methodology applied by the ACM. The District Court sided with the ACM and Sligro and held that the ACM had analysed the consequences of the acquisition in sufficient detail, including the impact on the wholesale market of a related distribution agreement between Sligro and Heineken. Notably, the District Court confirmed the relevance of the economic model developed by Sligro.

Click here for the court's judgement (only in Dutch). 

Houthoff represented Sligro before the Rotterdam District Court in a procedure in which Sligro's competitors (through Maxxam) challenged the ACM's clearance of the acquisition by Sligro of a part of Heineken's wholesale activities.

This matter concerns a rare appeal of a merger clearance decision, in which Maxxam challenged the methodology applied by the ACM. The District Court sided with the ACM and Sligro and held that the ACM had analysed the consequences of the acquisition in sufficient detail, including the impact on the wholesale market of a related distribution agreement between Sligro and Heineken. Notably, the District Court confirmed the relevance of the economic model developed by Sligro.

Click here for the court's judgement (only in Dutch).