Hello, great to see you again. Welcome back to Emlex's weekly podcast. My name is James Panicki. I'll be your host for the next 16 or so minutes.

Now, here are two words that would be familiar to our listeners,

killer acquisitions. You know what it's about. Large established companies acquiring fledgling

start-ups, not because they pose a competitive threat today, but because they might become

competitors further down the track. At least, that's the theory of those opposing such deals.

It's a tricky situation for regulators because there's often little they can do.

Well, there have just been some interesting developments in the European Union recently,

with the European Court of Justice issuing a ruling that could end the run of regulatory

impotence on the issue of killer acquisitions.

Natalie McNeilis covers mergers from Emlex's Brussels Bureau, and she joins me right now.

So Nat, of course, our discussion on killer acquisition goes way back, right?

I mean, this isn't our first podcast on this, is it?

No, and I don't think it's going to be the last one, honestly.

Killer acquisitions is the hot topic in merger control circles around the world these days.

Why is that?

I mean, why is that notion of a killer acquisition as relevant today as it was a few years ago when we first discussed this?

I mean, I think it comes from this sort of growing sense of concern about how the sort of big

and powerful companies, especially in digital markets, just seem to be getting bigger and

more powerful.

And there's this feeling that governments haven't done enough to prevent that or to slow it

down.

And I was thinking of,

...