{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02203856749311295, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.491071428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Survey of International Jurisdictions Providing for Judicial Merger Prohibition Decisions

The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have some form of merger litigation follow the European Commission model in which the agency itself can prohibit the transaction, but that decision can be appealed. However, as in the United States, in eight jurisdictions the agency itself cannot prohibit a transaction but must seek judicial intervention to do so. In this general survey article, we provide an overview of merger litigation in Austria, Chile, Finland, New Zealand, and Sweden; we do not address Australia, Canada, and South Africa, because in-depth articles on these jurisdictions are found elsewhere in this symposium.