PERU Trends and Developments Contributed by: Carlos A. Patrón, David Kuroiwa and Vania Cruz, Payet, Rey, Cauvi, Pérez Abogados
Payet, Rey, Cauvi, Pérez Abogados Av. Víctor Andrés Belaúnde 147
Torre 3 Piso 12 San Isidro
Lima Peru Tel: +51 1 6123 202 Email: lexmail@prcp.com.pe Web: www.prcp.com.pe/
General Statistics on Merger Control in Peru (June 2021–May 2026) This year marks the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of Law 31112 – Merger Control Law (June 2021). During this period, the implementation and develop - ment of the merger control regime by the National Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protec - tion of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) has, overall, been fairly consistent and predictable, progressively allowing market participants to gain greater visibility into the criteria and practices applied by the authority. Below, we provide a brief overview of some of the main aspects and trends observed during these first five years of implementation of the regime. • From June 2021 (when Law 31112 came into force) to May 2026 (as per the public information avail - able), the Commission has received a total of 104 requests for transaction authorisation. • Of the total number of applications received (104), the authority has approved 81 transactions in Phase 1, approved five transactions with remedies in Phase 2, and denied one transaction. INDECOPI tends to approve the vast majority of authorisa - tion requests without conditions. In addition, of the total number of applications received, there have been nine withdrawals. Most of these withdrawals appear to relate to cases in which the economic agents did not complete the notification filing within the applicable; accordingly, they withdrew the filing to resubmit it at a later stage with com - plete information. • Remedies were imposed in the telecommunica - tions, energy, pharmaceutical, construction and
fuel markets. The denied transaction concerned the sugar production market. • None of the resolutions issued by INDECOPI on merger control have been challenged through administrative or judicial appeals. • Although, INDECOPI has traditionally approved both behavioural and structural remedies, it has recently shown a tendency to impose structural remedies. For example, in a recent transaction in the fuel sector, INDECOPI imposed, among other measures, the obligation to divest certain gas stations to enable the entry of a new operator into the market. This decision followed INDECOPI’s assessment that the transaction would lead to a significant concentration in retail fuel markets within specific geographic areas. • Regarding timelines, the authority has consistently complied with the statutory deadlines applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 reviews, and has even issued decisions on several occasions, typically three to five business days before the expiration of the legal deadline. According to recent statistics, from the admission of the filing, INDECOPI has taken, on average, approximately 25 business days to issue decisions approving transactions under Phase 1 (the maximum legal term being 30 busi - ness days). For transactions reviewed under Phase 2, the authority has taken, on average, between 9 and 12 months. In all cases, the decisions have been issued within the statutory timeframes estab- lished by law. • Regarding the analysis of notification forms, during the five years of implementation of Law 31112, and particularly over the last two years, INDECOPI has adopted a stricter approach with respect to the
499 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook