Recent public debate on common ownership by institutional investors has brought awareness to one of the many intersections between the corporate and antitrust worlds. But the interplay between these two fields dates back to the dawn of US antitrust. This volume shines a light on the often underplayed and misunderstood connections between antitrust and corporate law and finance. It offers a multi-disciplinary perspective on highly trending issues, such as parallel equity holdings, interlocking directorships, the anticompetitive effects of certain corporate governance arrangements, and the relationships between ESG and not-for profit activities with antitrust law. This edited collection brings together leading experts from across the US, Europe, and Asia and provides a cross-border perspective on alternative policy approaches for the field.

In recent years, the competition law community has become absorbed in discussions around the dominance of the largest digital platform companies: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. Such discussions, for example about the meaning of power in the digital age, have helped to shift the field beyond its narrow focus on price and output effects. Yet, a crucial dimension is missing from the vast majority of commentary on competition law and the digital economy: the role of financialisation. Financialisation—understood as the hypertrophy and increased volatility of the financial sector, together with the reorientation of corporate governance around the principle of shareholder value maximisation—has important implications for the competitive strategies of the Big Tech companies, as well as who benefits from their economic power. Presenting quantitative findings on the corporate governance regimes of the Big Tech platforms, and drawing on insights from corporate law and heterodox economics, this chapter represents an attempt to integrate a financial capitalism perspective into the competition law analysis of digital markets.

US academic discourse on director interlocks isn’t new. Yet, the increased attention to common ownership has also brought to light the increased tendency of interlocked directors to serve in the same industry. I termed these directors as horizontal directors in my earlier work – shining a light on the benefits they bring to investors and companies but also the risks they pose to corporate governance and antitrust law. This chapter further revisits the prevalence of horizontal directors, armed with six additional years of data, and shows that the prevalence of horizontal directors has remained steady, even as attention to common ownership has increased in recent years. These findings should serve as a clarion call to regulators – urging them to directly address the perils of horizontal directors while maintaining some of their key benefits.

The question under which circumstances an undertaking is liable for its own competition law infringement – not to mention the liability for infringements committed by an affiliated undertaking – is of invaluable practical importance. From the early days of European competition law, there has been an interesting legal relationship between the single economic entity as the addressee of EU competition law and the respective entities under national corporate laws. Legend has it, businesses in some European jurisdictions can avoid fines by way of corporate restructuring, whilst in other jurisdictions this is not an option. The present contribution traces the developments in the EU and in Germany during recent years with special regard to the so-called German sausage gap – a once well-known and much-exploited lacuna that helped shelter companies from liability through specific corporate restructuring.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the Italian legislation on interlocking directorates and its enforcement in the last decade. In 2011, Italy introduced a specific anti-interlocking provision aimed at promoting competition in the banking, insurance, and financial sectors. After explaining why these personal ties may facilitate a collusive or quiet life equilibrium among competitors, we attempt to evaluate the effectiveness and limits of the Italian interlocking ban. Using the banking sector as a case study, we present data on the number of interlocking directorates that persist among the 25 largest banking groups operating in Italy at the end of 2018. The result of our study is that interlocking directorates among major Italian banks and banking groups seem to have disappeared. This is in line with empirical studies showing that, in the period following the entry into force of the Italian interlocking ban, bank lending rates fell, indicating more vigorous competition. We conclude our chapter by questioning whether the 2011 Italian interlocking ban has had any effect on the ownership structure of the relevant market players, for instance contributing to the disposal of minority and cross-shareholdings held by competing companies, and on the composition of their governing bodies.

There are often claims that competition law does not or should not apply to entities that operate on a not-for-profit basis. Operating on a not-for-profit is not however accepted as a reason to exclude an entities activities from the scope of competition law. Competition law is applied to non-profit providers and this essay identifies a number of ways in which not-for-profit status can influence the way the law is applied. It then considers whether, particularly when not-for-profit entities are competing with for-profit entities, whether and why modifications in the application of the law are justified.

While company law makes great efforts to maintain the separation of different legal entities, other areas of law increasingly emphasise the common responsibility of corporate groups. One of the fields shaping this emerging principle is competition law, where focusing on the whole group rather than its individual members is increasingly becoming the norm. But this approach is still far from being uniformly accepted. While EU competition law is pushing ahead, US antitrust law is said to take a rather critical stance. Against this background, this chapter examines the functions performed by a unitary perspective on corporate groups. The main goal is to show that at least three important functions must be distinguished in EU competition law, each of which has its own implications. Only when these are properly understood can it be determined where the group perspective is appropriate and where it is not. This is shown by the example of current discussions, for example, on the liability of sister companies and on possible applications in the area of liability for damages. Finally, the analysis in this chapter also aims to contribute to a better understanding of the different approaches in EU and US competition law.

Since their creation, corporations have proven to be vehicles for incredible aggregate wealth creation. It was, however, recognised at the outset that in creating a unique set of legal features that would make the company attractive for private investment, the state was not only creating a co-investor in public wealth but there was also the possibility that the company would pose a threat to the state itself. As such, since its inception, the corporation has been involved in a delicate dance with the state both to route its productive capacity towards socially desirable ends and to control the corporation’s power. Today, as technological development and the mobilisation of international financial capital allow the power of the corporation to transcend that of the state, the tools of the past that were used to constrain the corporation are increasingly relevant. Corporate law and antitrust were once used to maintain the balance between the power of the corporation and the power of the state. The now-separate conversations about corporate responsibility in the corporate governance sphere and about corporate power within competition policy circles have always, in fact, been fundamentally connected and targeted at the same set of risks.

Common ownership is the talk of the town in antitrust land. The competitive implications of rival firms being partially owned and controlled by a small set of overlapping owners are both fascinating and hotly contested. Could the source of potential harm be minority shareholder control in a setting of widely held companies? Critics question the extent and mechanisms of common owners’ influence driving any pro- or anticompetitive effects. This chapter aims to present a comprehensive account of partial ownership, capturing the incentives and effects of both individual and institutional investors and also cross- and common shareholding. It illustrates the early historical unity between corporate and competition laws in regulating shareholding acquisitions but also their progressive quiet disconnect. Triggered by the contemporary common ownership (hypo)thesis, it puts forward a taxonomy of shareholding types and their control characteristics from a competition law perspective, with emphasis on commonly thought passive and diversified investment holdings. The chapter concludes by urging competition and corporate governance and finance policymakers towards harmonic regulatory solutions to address common ownership. It also offers a quantum theory of the corporate property “atom”, drawing cautionary tales about the dynamic and ambiguous qualities of minority common shareholding for antitrust enforcers.

Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) have been at the core of the global academic debate throughout the last decade, while affecting several fields of knowledge, among which legal jurisprudence. Although much has been said about ESG policies in different fields of the law, less has been said about their multidisciplinary dimension. In this Chapter we analyse ESG policies at the intersection of corporate governance and competition policy, focusing especially on technological innovation – given the centrality of dynamic efficiency for the solution of the environmental crisis. We also highlight other potential intersections of ESG themes across competition and corporate law and governance, while suggesting the need for an integrated policy-making in this area.

A stylized fact that lurks in the background of the recent literature on common ownership is the parallel increase in the profitability of oligopolistic industries and common ownership. Some have argued that the growth in common ownership has caused the increase in oligopoly profits and have proposed a variety of policy responses. This paper briefly reviews the available evidence and finds it unconvincing. It then provides an overview of the evidence that concentration and profitability have increased, considers alternative explanations, and suggests that the emergence of “superstar” firms – and not the growth in common ownership – could be a fundamental driver of the parallel increase in concentration and profitability.