News / UK competition regulator extends GXO-Wincanton decision day

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has extended its deadline for a decision on GXO’s takeover of Wincanton by a further two months.

In February, the CMA declined to greenlight the full takeover of Wincanton by GXO on the basis that the deal would likely “reduce competition in the supply of dedicated warehousing services to grocery customers in the UK”.

In response GXO offered the CMA two possible remedial actions – the Divestment Remedy Proposal which would see it sell Wincanton’s grocery logistics assets; and the 3PL Sponsorship Remedy Proposal by which it would create a fund to finance a new 3PL entrant to the UK’s contract logistics sector for supermarkets.

The CMA was originally scheduled to publish its decision on 25 April but said yesterday that it had extended that by eight weeks after meeting with GXO and receiving comments on the deal from other industry participants.

“The CMA consulted on these remedies with third parties through its Invitation to Comment on Remedies and held a meeting with the parties on 25 March 2025.

“Following this Remedy Meeting, GXO submitted amendments to its proposals including significant modifications to one remedy, which require detailed consideration by the Inquiry Group, including further discussion with certain third parties.

“The Inquiry Group has also had regard to the need to consult the parties regarding their provisional view on the most appropriate remedy, and to consider the parties’ responses before coming to a final decision,” it said.

While the modifications that GXO has offered to its remedies remain undisclosed, the CMA this week published a set of industry responses to its initial remedy proposals, which show broad opposition to the deal.

One grocery retailer writes that the 3PL Sponsorship proposal contains a “relatively high risk that we could be in a position at the end of the five years where this remedy effectively fails or becomes evident that it is unworkable, and we would have to re-contract with GXO at higher costs” on the basis that “there is uncertainty whether a new entrant would see value in moving into this specialised area and the risk that those third parties factor this into costs increases for our business should they decide to enter, as potentially they would be serving a single client’s need and that would require resource disproportionate to the revenue”.

It added the divestment proposal was equally unattractive because “we do not currently believe that there is a credible party in the market that could take on the service without adversely impacting us”, and said the best way to preserve the current levels of competition was to block the deal altogether.

Another respondent agreed that the sponsorship model was unworkable because “the proposed fund appears to be fragmented between various customers and so is likely to be dissipated across numerous 3PLs, resulting in no one credible competitor being established”, but argued that the divestiture model could work if “multiple dedicated warehouses across multiple customers, specifically all Shared Warehousing services to Grocery Customers” were included – currently the divestiture concerns only dedicated warehouses.

Meanwhile, Menzies Distribution chief executive Richard Morson also wrote against the sponsorship model due to the relatively short time frame proposed.

“The only effective way to properly train another warehousing services provider to take over dedicated warehousing services for grocers given the nuances in their industry is for such provider to run the contract and learn on the job.

“Off-the-job training while the incumbent providers continue to service the contract for two years will not provide the results the grocers are looking for, which is having a 3PL as a credible provider of dedicated warehousing contract services,” he added.

However, a GXO spokesperson today told The Loadstar the company remained confident it would still complete the takeover.

“The extension by the CMA is positive news as it will allow the CMA more time to recognise that our remedy proposals effectively address its provisional concerns.

“These relate to a very small segment of the Wincanton business so we will continue to contest the CMA’s areas of interest to secure unconditional approval,” they said.