draft-antitrust-competition-pre-notification

name	draft-antitrust-competition-pre-notification
task_id	antitrust-competition/draft-antitrust-competition
description	Supports pre-notification briefing papers for cross-border merger control by structuring multi-jurisdiction filing analysis, vertical foreclosure review, gun-jumping risk screening, and privilege-aware document handling.
activates_for	["planner","solver","checker"]

Skill: Pre-Notification Antitrust Briefing Paper

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the assignment as a board-ready pre-notification briefing, not a filing draft: the paper should explain clearance path, risk, sequencing, and action points.
• Identify each relevant jurisdiction, then determine whether the review is mandatory, voluntary, suspensory, referral-based, or subject to a one-stop-shop / parallel-review structure.
• Separate merger-control analysis from broader transaction-risk issues: clearance timing, gun-jumping, document handling, SPA allocation, and integration planning are distinct topics.
• If the source set contains multiple candidate jurisdictions, multiple product overlaps, or multiple vertical links, enumerate them first and analyze each separately.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• The paper fails when it treats cross-border filing strategy as a generic summary instead of a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction plan with procedure type, timing, and interaction effects.
• The paper fails when it discusses market overlap without tying the issue to the relevant market definition, share / concentration framework, and jurisdictional threshold.
• The paper fails when it addresses vertical issues only as a narrative risk; a complete assessment must cover input foreclosure, customer foreclosure, and bundling / tying dynamics where relevant.
• The paper fails when it ignores document hygiene: internal strategy materials, competitor assessments, and deal-team emails may need privilege review and controlled handling before any submission.
• The paper fails when it omits pre-clearance coordination risk: integration planning, sensitive information exchange, or implementation steps before clearance can create gun-jumping exposure.
• The paper fails when it does not connect antitrust risk to the transaction documents that allocate that risk, especially the efforts covenant, outside date, closing condition, and any reverse termination fee.
• The paper fails when it states legal conclusions without naming the governing merger-control rule, exemption, or doctrinal test.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Cross-border merger control analysis should be organized by jurisdiction and by filing trigger, using the applicable turnover, share, asset, local nexus, or transaction-value thresholds.
• Horizontal merger assessment should identify the relevant product and geographic market, then evaluate concentration and overlap under the merger-control framework used in the jurisdiction.
• Vertical merger assessment should ask whether the merged firm could foreclose rivals, whether it would have an incentive to do so, and whether the likely effect would be materially harmful downstream or upstream.
• Pre-notification practice commonly requires careful coordination with counsel on data gathering, clean-team protocols, and message discipline before any regulator-facing submission.
• Gun-jumping rules prohibit premature implementation and certain coordination before clearance; analyze against the governing merger-control statute, notification rule, and any suspension obligation.
• Transaction-document analysis should focus on the strength of the antitrust efforts covenant, the practical adequacy of termination risk allocation, and whether closing mechanics align with the expected review path.

4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Jurisdictional filing map

   • For each jurisdiction in scope, state the filing trigger, whether notification is mandatory, the type of review process, and the expected sequencing relative to other filings.
   • Cite the controlling statute, regulation, guidance, or established authority supporting the conclusion.
   • Note whether any filing can proceed only after another filing, a referral decision, or a jurisdictional threshold confirmation.

2. Horizontal overlap analysis

   • For each overlapping product line, define the market, identify the parties’ positions, and assess the competitive significance of the overlap.
   • Tie the analysis to the applicable concentration or share framework used by the jurisdiction.
   • If the record supports it, distinguish between no-overlap, limited overlap, and meaningful overlap scenarios rather than collapsing them.

3. Vertical / conglomerate assessment

   • For each upstream-downstream or adjacent relationship, analyze ability to foreclose, incentive to foreclose, and likely competitive effect.
   • Include adjacent-product, bundling, or tying concerns where the facts suggest post-merger leverage over customers or rivals.
   • Connect the analysis to the commercial role each party plays in the supply chain.

4. Document handling and privilege review

   • Review internal materials for competitive language, deal rationale, market-sharing discussion, and competitor impact.
   • Flag materials that should be screened for privilege, deal confidentiality, or regulator sensitivity before circulation.
   • Recommend a controlled document protocol suitable for pre-filing preparation and regulatory response.

5. Pre-clearance coordination / gun-jumping screen

   • Identify any operational integration steps, sensitive information exchanges, joint decision-making, or implementation activity before clearance.
   • State the relevant prohibition under the governing merger-control regime and explain the remediation needed.
   • Distinguish legitimate integration planning from prohibited conduct.

6. SPA and closing-condition analysis

   • Assess the antitrust efforts standard, the outside date, any termination payment, and the closing condition package in light of the regulatory path.
   • Explain whether the allocation of regulatory risk matches the likely review burden and timing.
   • Flag any drafting tension between clearance obligations and commercial closing expectations.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Track the deal timeline from signing through pre-notification, formal filing, review, remedy discussions if any, and closing.
• Where the transaction involves supply relationships, distribution channels, or adjacent lines of business, map the relationship before assessing competitive effects.
• If the source set includes multiple jurisdictions with different clocks or suspension rules, present the sequence as a coherent path rather than a single global timeline.
• If internal documents predate clearance activity, note the temporal distance between strategy, filing preparation, and any integration-related conduct.

6. Output structure conventions

• Open with a concise executive summary giving the overall antitrust risk, the likely clearance path, and the immediate actions needed before filing.
• Use a clear board-paper structure with short headings, decision-oriented prose, and jurisdiction-specific subparts where helpful.
• For each issue, state the governing authority, the factual basis from the source set, the practical risk, and the recommended next step.
• When multiple jurisdictions, products, or relationships are in scope, present them as separate entries rather than blending them into one generalized narrative.
• Include an explicit recommended actions section at the end with named responsibility and timing anchored to the transaction timetable.
• Keep the tone practical and clearance-focused; avoid over-lawyering where the source record supports a straightforward screening conclusion.