header-logo header-logo

29 January 2010
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

BSkyB is loser in spat over ITV

Commission’s recommendation to reduce shareholding upheld

The Court of Appeal has dismissed BSkyB’s legal challenge to the Competition Commission’s findings over its share in ITV but upheld the Commission’s conclusion on media plurality.

The Competition Commission found BSkyB’s acquisition of 17.9% of ITV’s issued share capital in 2006 would result in an expected “lessening of competition” and recommended it reduce its holding to below 7.5%. This would satisfy the so-called “media plurality” issue, by which there should be sufficient numbers of people with control of media enterprises to guard against dominance by one person.

BSkyB’s share offer had acted as a “spoiler” on an earlier bid for ITV by Virgin Media, at a lower share price. Virgin’s offer was worth about £1.22 per share while BSkyB offered £1.35.

In BSkyB v Virgin (British Sky Broadcasting Group plc v Competition Commission and others; Virgin Media Inc v Competition Commission and others) [2010] EWCA Civ 2, [2010] All ER (D) 130 (Jan), Lord Justice Lloyd upheld the Commission’s findings on curbing BSkyB’s shares holdings.
As regards dominance in the media, Lloyd LJ said: “what was required [to satisfy the media plurality issue] was not just an exercise of counting heads, and that it was proper and necessary to have regard to the actual degree of control exercised by one enterprise over another.”

Later in his judgment, he said: “when it comes to assessing the plurality of the aggregate number of relevant controllers and to considering the sufficiency of that plurality, the Commission may, and should, take into account the actual extent of the control exercised and exercisable over a relevant enterprise by another, whether it is a case of deemed control resulting from material influence under section 26 or rather one of actual common ownership or control.”

 

Issue: 7402 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll