KKR Might Have Misled EC over TIM Deal

The European Commission (EC) has expressed concerns that KKR may have submitted inaccurate or misleading data during its 2024 investigation into the acquisition of Telecom Italia’s fixed-line network assets. In a formal Statement of Objections, the EC identified discrepancies in the investment firm's representations concerning wholesale access agreements.

Following a detailed inquiry prompted by operator complaints, the Commission has reached a preliminary conclusion that KKR provided, at minimum through negligence, incorrect or misleading information regarding the terms of its existing long-term contracts. The central allegation involves KKR’s assertion that prevailing contract terms would remain unchanged post-acquisition, as modifications would supposedly require mutual consent from third-party operators.

The EC had initially presumed these conditions would prevent KKR from degrading wholesale access terms or unilaterally terminating services. This specific assurance was a critical factor in the Commission's original regulatory assessment of the transaction. However, after the transaction's completion, the regulator received formal grievances from third-party operators alleging that FiberCop, the wholesale entity, had implemented significant price increases.

“Effective merger control relies fundamentally on companies providing the Commission with accurate information,” stated Teresa Ribera, the EC Executive Vice-President for a clean, just, and competitive transition. “It appears KKR misrepresented its commitment to maintaining existing long-term access terms. Our current evidence indicates that, following the merger, KKR may have increased costs for wholesale broadband customers, in some instances quite substantially.”

A spokesperson for KKR stated that the firm strongly contests the European Commission’s preliminary findings. “We maintain the accuracy of all documentation provided during the 2024 review process. We intend to rigorously defend our position against these preliminary allegations in our formal response, while maintaining a constructive dialogue with the Commission. The Statement of Objections does not constitute a final ruling of infringement, and the transaction’s existing regulatory clearance remains in effect,” the representative concluded.