CMA accepts final undertakings in Vandemoortele's acquisition of Délifrance, fully determining its Phase 2 inquiry
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accepted final undertakings in its Phase 2 inquiry into the completed acquisition by Vandemoortele Group of Délifrance S.A., a manufacturer of frozen pastry and laminated dough products, fully determining the reference. The case page was updated on 6 October 2026, the same day as the statutory deadline for the Phase 2 investigation. On 15 September 2026 the CMA published a notice of its proposal to accept final undertakings, accompanied by draft final undertakings, with a comment deadline of 30 September 2026. This followed the CMA's final report on 20 August 2026, which required Vandemoortele to sell a UK plant as the remedy for competition concerns identified during the in-depth investigation. The Phase 2 inquiry, opened in April 2026, focused on horizontal unilateral effects (the risk that a merger reduces competition by combining two firms that would otherwise compete against each other) in the supply of frozen laminated dough products to retail and foodservice customers in the UK. In May 2026, Vandemoortele accepted an SLC Concession, formally acknowledging that the acquisition may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition in that market, a relatively unusual procedural step that allowed the inquiry group to narrow its focus to remedies. The inquiry is chaired by Martin Coleman and includes panel members Ashleye Gunn and Sir Kenneth Parker.
Why this matters
This case illustrates the CMA's continued willingness to pursue structural remedies, including asset disposals, in completed mergers where competition concerns are identified. The requirement to sell a UK plant sets a concrete precedent for how the CMA remedies horizontal concentration in food manufacturing, a sector with few large-scale UK-based competitors in specialist product categories. The SLC Concession mechanism, used here by Vandemoortele, is a relatively rare feature of Phase 2 practice and has the procedural effect of focusing the inquiry group's work on remedies rather than liability, compressing the timeline.
On the Ground
This matter activates public M&A and competition law practice groups, with particular demand for merger control, Phase 2 advocacy, and remedies negotiation expertise. Lawyers advising Vandemoortele would have led the SLC Concession strategy and subsequent engagement with the CMA on the scope and terms of the divestiture undertakings. Client demand in this space comes from food manufacturing and consumer goods companies seeking pre-merger advice on UK competition risk. A trainee working on a CMA merger inquiry would assist with regulatory notification drafting, compliance gap analysis memos comparing the proposed undertakings against the CMA's stated concerns, and remediation tracker updates monitoring the divestiture timetable.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What is an SLC Concession in a CMA Phase 2 inquiry, and why might a merging party choose to make one?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved