Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“LexisLibrary gives us the most relevant and recent cases and always has the latest information on them. It makes research so much easier. We're more cost-effective for our clients and more efficient each day”

Advocates

Access all documents on Structural joint venture

Structural joint venture meaning

What does Structural joint venture mean?
A structural joint venture is a joint venture that creates or acquires a standalone business with its own assets, staff and functions on a lasting basis, so it can operate autonomously. The term is descriptive rather than statutory. In competition law, this corresponds to a “full‑function joint venture” (historically called a “concentrative joint venture”) that brings about a lasting change in market structure. Key features typically include: incorporation or acquisition of a JV vehicle; transfer or contribution of assets, personnel and contracts; operational autonomy beyond a narrow project; and an intention to operate indefinitely or for a substantial period. It is contrasted with a purely contractual or co‑operative JV, which is assessed under antitrust prohibitions rather than merger control. Practical significance: a structural JV is treated as a merger/control of a concentration. It may require notification: - EU: to the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation (full‑function test). - UK (England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland): to the CMA under the Enterprise Act 2002 where enterprises cease to be distinct (voluntary filing; call‑in risk). - Ireland: to the CCPC under the Competition Act 2002 where a JV performs the functions of an autonomous economic entity on a lasting basis (mandatory thresholds). Usage...
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Structural joint venture

NEWS
High Court (TCC) holds BHP strictly liable under Brazilian law for 2015 Samarco dam collapse in £36bn claim; limitation suspended; English group action proceeds to 2026 quantum trial

The mining group that owned and ran the Fundão Dam through a joint venture faced proceedings in England over the 2015 torrent of toxic sludge and mud that devastated communities in Brazil. Judge Finola O’Farrell ruled that BHP bore strict liability for harm to the environment and to third parties arising from the dam’s failure. The structure belonged to Samarco, a joint enterprise between Vale and BHP, and contained mining waste known as tailings. According to the 222-page judgment, BHP ought not to have persisted in raising the dam’s height before the collapse, a measure deemed a direct and immediate cause of the catastrophe. The ruling states the company should have known by 2014 that the dam had structural defects. As Judge O’Farrell observed, it was inconceivable that a decision would have been taken to continue increasing the height in those conditions, and the collapse could have been avoided. The judge held BHP liable both as a polluter under Brazilian environmental law and on the basis of fault under the...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Structural joint venture

PRACTICE NOTES
European Commission prohibits Tata Steel/ThyssenKrupp JV (M.8713): packaging steel and automotive hot dip galvanised concerns; structural remedies inadequate; appeal to General Court (T‑584/19)

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 584/19 ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position as at the decision of 11/06/2019 and is no longer maintained. See the timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger review of the planned joint venture between Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp (Case M.8713). The deal featured horizontal overlaps across several flat steel product markets. Latest developments On 11 June 2019, the Commission blocked the transaction. It found the deal would have weakened competition and driven up prices for multiple steel categories. The package of commitments proposed by the parties did not sufficiently resolve the Commission’s concerns. Parties Tata Steel Limited is an India-headquartered multinational steel producer and part of the Tata Group. In Europe, it is the second-largest steelmaker, operating steelmaking in the Netherlands and the UK, with manufacturing sites across Europe. ThyssenKrupp AG is a Germany-headquartered multinational conglomerate focused on industrial engineering and steel production. Its principal steel production hubs...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Joint ventures under English law: comparing company, partnership, contractual, LLP/LP and unlimited structures, and key considerations on liability, tax, funding, governance, accounting and risk

Choosing the joint venture vehicle A joint venture is not recognised in English law as a separate legal form. Rather, it is a commercial arrangement in which two or more parties agree to combine resources to deliver a defined project or other business activity. The term spans a wide range of scenarios, from structural solutions that establish or shift economic control of a legal entity—such as joint venture companies or partnerships—to non‑structural approaches, including contractual joint projects and informal, undocumented collaborations. A joint venture may be set up for a single initiative, a set timeframe, or as an ongoing business relationship. Parties considering a joint venture have several structural routes open to them, and the most suitable model will turn on their particular circumstances. Commonly used structures include: Corporate joint venture—creating a separate limited company in which each party holds shares Joint venture partnership—forming a new partnership vehicle Contractual or commercial joint venture—defining all aspects of the joint venture relationship within a contract ...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
EU and UK competition law for joint ventures: EUMR, EA 2002/DMCC Act thresholds, Article 101 self-assessment, ancillary restraints, spill-over and information exchange risks, with checklists

Businesses commonly rely on joint ventures to break into fresh markets and to design, develop, and launch new products. This notion spans a wide array of scenarios and arrangements, including: structural setups that establish or alter the economic control of a given legal entity: joint venture companies themselves partnerships between participants alterations to existing shareholder control non-structural joint ventures: contract-based joint projects informal (not documented) collaborations For many joint venture arrangements, the extent of 'control' each party holds is often pivotal—though its meaning can be understood differently in varying contexts. This is particularly significant in EU competition law in practice. Accordingly, a joint venture’s treatment under those rules depends on whether it is 'concentrative' (structural) or 'cooperative' (non-structural). Structural joint ventures and merger control Where a joint venture brings about a durable structural shift in the market (ie...

Read More Right Arrow