Last May, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) opened its investigations into the merger between two Finnish broadline distributers Kesko Oyj (Kesko) and Heinon Tukku Oy (Heinon Tukku). The FCCA opened an in-depth investigation into the matter in June. The Market Court extended the investigation period first until 31 October 2019 and subsequently until 18 November 2019 when the FCCA, which does not itself have the authority to block mergers, submitted a prohibition proposal to the Market Court.
18.2.2020
First Ever Merger Prohibition Issued by Finnish Market Court — Blocks Kesko’s Acquisition of Heinon Tukku
Related services
Finnish Market Court prohibited a merger for the first time in history and blocked Kesko’s acquisition of Heinon Tukku on 17 February 2020.
Definition of the Relevant Market
Kesko’s and Heinon Tukku’s businesses mainly overlap in the wholesale of daily consumer goods to foodservice customers, such as hotels and restaurants. Both the FCCA as well as the parties to the transaction agreed that the market could be further segmented into the distribution and pick-up markets. Additionally, both the FCCA and the parties agreed that the market was national in scope.
However, the FCCA and the parties disagreed on the scope of the market for the broadline distribution of daily consumer goods to Finnish foodservice customers. Therefore, the Market Court had to analyse whether the market was limited to broadline distributors as argued by the FCCA or whether specialist distributors and food manufacturers should also be included in the relevant market as proposed by Kesko and Heinon Tukku.
In defining the relevant market, the Market Court took into account various analyses presented by the FCCA and Kesko. The Market Court analysed the critical loss and transaction cost and used market surveys to assess the demand substitution and customer switching between broadline wholesalers and specialist distributors. The analyses showed that the majority of customers usually deal with only one supplier, in practice a broadline distributor, and thus centralise their purchases. The analyses also showed that, in principle, customers switched from one broadline distributor to another, not to a specialist distributor or food manufacturer. Due to these factors, amongst others, the Market Court upheld the FCCA’s market definition.
Acquisition Held to Impede Effective Competition
The Market Court held that Kesko’s acquisition of Heinon Tukku was likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition within the meaning of section 25(1) of the Finnish Competition Act. The Market Court based its findings on, among other things, the fact that the merged entity would have had a significant market share and that Kesko and Heinon Tukku were to be regarded as close competitors. Furthermore, the Market Court noted that the transaction would affect the market structure as Kesko’s Kespro was the number one market player and there were only a limited number of other firms active in the relevant market in addition to Kespro and Heinon Tukku. In accordance with the FCCA, the Market Court found that the merged entity could profitably raise its prices.
The Market Court held that foodservice customers could not be considered to have such bargaining power that they could counter the competition concerns arising from the transaction. The Market Court also found potential market entry or efficiencies to be insufficient countervailing factors.
Competition Concerns Could Not Be Addressed by Commitments
Kesko offered the FCCA commitments regarding setting maximum wholesale prices and the distribution system. The FCCA has, both generally and in the case at hand, stated that competition concerns arising from horizontal mergers generally always require structural commitments such as full or partial divesture of a business unit. The FCCA held that the behavioural commitments offered by Kesko were insufficient to remove the identified competition concerns. This view was also shared by the Market Court.
Unlike the FCCA, the Market Court could have ordered further commitments in addition to those offered by Kesko. However, the Market Court held that, in the case at hand, prohibition was the only way to ensure that competition on the relevant market was not impeded and, thus, historically prohibited Kesko’s acquisition of Heinon Tukku.
Prohibition Proposal Rarely Lead to Blocked Mergers
The prohibition proposal submitted in November 2019 was only the fourth prohibition proposal to be issued since the introduction of merger control in Finland in 1998. The first prohibition proposal was made in 2000 and concerned the acquisition of joint control by Sonera Oyj in Digita Oy, a subsidiary of Yleisradio (the Finnish National Broadcasting Company). The transaction was held to lead to significant foreclosure effects and protect the dominant positions of Sonera and Digita. The transaction was, however, conditionally approved on the condition that Sonera would refrain from applying for a digital television licence. As a result, Sonera withdrew from the transaction.
The second prohibition proposal, submitted over ten years later in 2011, related to a merger between NCC Roads Oy and Destia Oy. The merger was held to impede effective competition in the asphalt mass market of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The Market Court set strict additional commitments, such as renting a site for competitors for the production of asphalt mass and selling asphalt mass to competitors for a fair market price. NCC Roads withdrew from the original transaction and proposed a new transaction, which was more limited in its scope and was approved by the FCCA.
In 2013 a third prohibition proposal concerning a merger between Uponor Oyj and KWH-Yhtymä Oy was issued. The FCCA was concerned that the merger would lead to significant reduction of competition on the plastic infrastructure pipe market as the merger was between two of the largest market players. As in the previous cases, the Market Court conditionally accepted the merger, requiring the merged entity to reserve production capacity for certain types of pipes for their competitors and to sell seven specified production lines. Uponor and KWH accepted the commitments, and the FCCA was satisfied with the Market Court’s decision and did not appeal it.
Prohibition Subject to Appeal
Kesko could still appeal the Market Court’s decision by filing an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The appeal must be filed within 30 days from being informed of the Market Court’s decision.
See our blog post for further information on the role of economic analyses in merger proceedings.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026