Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In complex merger investigations, counsel must first map the strategic value of the client’s assets and functions that could be subject to remedies. This requires a disciplined assessment of which lines of business, customers, and geographies drive value and which elements are most vulnerable to competitive disruption if concessions are not offered. The aim is not merely to concede, but to translate the remedy into a durable benefit that aligns incentives across the firm and the regulator’s objectives. Early scoping discussions should identify red lines, potential divestitures or behavioral changes, and a framework for evaluating remedies against measurable, enforceable benchmarks.

Once a baseline remedy concept is drafted, the team should translate it into a negotiation playbook anchored by data and narrative. Build a crisp story that explains why the proposed remedy preserves value for the client while simultaneously addressing competitive concerns. Antitrust authorities respond to clarity, enforceability, and predictability, so include clear milestones, timelines, and verification mechanisms. Prepare multiple options graded by impact and risk, so negotiators can pivot when authorities push for deeper concessions. Document the cost of inaction, the feasibility of remediation, and the likelihood of market recovery post-implementation to demonstrate a resilient approach.

The heart of a successful remedy negotiation lies in presenting an enforceable framework that the granting authority can monitor and verify. This demands precise definition of the remedy’s scope, the metrics used to measure compliance, and the governance structure that will oversee implementation. Consider independence provisions for monitoring, transparent reporting channels, and third-party audits to reduce disputes about whether the remedy is functioning. The best remedies minimize ongoing regulatory friction by offering predictable outcomes, reducing post-close uncertainty for customers and competitors alike. A well-designed regime should be resilient to market volatility and adaptable to legitimate operational changes.

In practice, negotiation teams should couple the remedy design with rigorous modeling of market dynamics. Simulate how the remedy would operate under various competitive and economic scenarios, including shocks. Provide sensitivity analyses showing how small changes in market share, pricing, or entry could affect the remedy’s effectiveness. Authorities appreciate scenarios that demonstrate the remedy’s stability across time and across different players. Coupling modeling with a robust governance plan helps ensure the remedy remains workable as business realities evolve and regulatory scrutiny intensifies.

A central challenge is preserving client value while ensuring the remedy addresses the core competition concerns. Counsel should identify which assets or capabilities are essential to the client’s ongoing strategy and which can be divested or restructured without eroding long-term value. It is crucial to quantify the value at stake and to propose mitigations that preserve customer access, product quality, and innovation. Remedies that entrench incumbency or materially diminish competitive dynamics risk regulatory rejection, so the design must balance preserving capabilities with measurable competitive benefits that are credible and auditable.

Equally important is aligning internal and external expectations. The client must understand not only what is being offered, but why it is the right path at this moment. Prepare an internal memo outlining strategic rationale, risk tolerance, and decision rights for senior leadership. Equip external communications with talking points that describe the remedy’s public benefits without overpromising. A transparent, consistent story helps mitigate speculative interpretations by markets and rivals, while reducing the likelihood of post-closure disputes that can derail the remedy’s credibility.

Practical scoping starts with precise definitions. Clarify the affected product lines, customer segments, and geographic areas, and tie each to a measurable objective. For example, specify pricing floors, service levels, or access conditions, with objective benchmarks. This precision is essential to avoid ambiguity that can lead to disputes or gaming by market participants. Build a governance framework that assigns accountability to a designated owner, includes independent surveillance, and ensures timely escalation of issues. The governance plan should also include contingency measures if regulatory priorities shift, preserving the remedy’s relevance over time.

Equally critical is a robust data and systems architecture. Establish data capture, storage, and access controls that support transparent measurement. Ensure data integrity through cross-checks, audit trails, and independent verification. The remedy should anticipate technology changes, interoperability needs, and potential integration with existing compliance programs. By embedding data governance from the outset, the parties reduce the risk of later disagreements about whether the remedy is operating as intended and whether corrective actions are warranted.

Negotiation leverage comes from credible alternatives and the ability to demonstrate real market impact. Prepare a menu of concession options, including limited divestitures, behavioral commitments, or temporary remedies with sunset clauses, each backed by rigorous benefits analyses. When authorities press for expanded remedies, show how incremental changes could dilute value or create friction for customers and suppliers. Conversely, offer targeted enhancements that strengthen market competitiveness, such as open access commitments or non-discriminatory terms. The aim is to reach a package that is robust, credible, and enforceable, rather than a sequence of concessions that erode long-term value and trust.

The timing of concessions matters as well. Coordinate with the regulator to align milestones with business cycles, product launches, and integration plans. Propose staged closeouts tied to verifiable performance metrics, so the remedy remains dynamic and responsive to real-world outcomes. Document the rationale for each stage, ensuring both sides have a clear understanding of how progress will be evaluated. A disciplined, timed approach reduces the risk of last-minute disputes and preserves value by avoiding abrupt, destabilizing changes at critical moments.

Long-term monitoring is a key differentiator between a cosmetic remedy and a durable one. Build an ongoing oversight program that tracks market indicators, customer welfare, and competitive responses. Establish frequency and format for reporting, define trigger events that prompt reassessment, and specify the decision rights for modifying or terminating the remedy. The regulator should feel confident that the remedy remains fit for purpose, while the client gains predictability that supports investment and growth. A transparent, data-backed monitoring regime helps maintain market trust and reduces the likelihood of retroactive challenges or renegotiations.

Finally, cultivate a collaborative atmosphere with the authorities. Early, proactive engagement fosters shared understanding and reduces the chance of stalemates. When disagreements arise, rely on objective criteria, credible data, and a documented decision trail to preserve momentum. Emphasize the value proposition for consumers and for innovation, while clearly delineating the constraints of the remedy. A well-managed negotiation, grounded in thorough analysis and steady governance, stands the best chance of delivering a remedy that protects client value, satisfies competition concerns, and endures beyond regulatory scrutiny.