By Gina Lodolo and Nicola Taljaard

Eight years after the South African Competition Commission (“Commission”) commenced its investigation into various national and foreign banks (“the Respondents”) in the Rand rigging case commonly referred to as the “Forex case”, the competition authorities continue to grapple with this complex case. While the Commission has continued to encourage the respondent banks to enter into settlement agreements with it, and several banks have done so, the case continues in respect of several Respondents. 

Briefly, the Forex case pertains to an allegation of collusion between South African and foreign banks which would have led to the manipulation of the Rand-Dollar exchange rate amongst said banks. The complained of conduct is alleged to have occurred between 2007 – 2013 (at least) amongst 28 banks in Europe, South Africa, Australia, and the United States of America. The banks allegedly conspired to manipulate the South African Rand by, inter alia, electronically sharing information on USD/ZAR currency pair trades. The harm alleged to the Commission extended to the Rand exchange rate, which had spillover effects on South African trade, foreign direct investment, corporate balance sheets, public and private debt, financial assets, and concomitant prices of goods and services. Accordingly, the Commission’s case is premised on section 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Act”) – being market allocation and price fixing.

Earlier this month, the Competition Appeal Court (“CAC”) again heard the Forex case, as new arguments have come to the fore. This time, the remaining Respondents have alleged that the Commission bears the onus to prove that all the Respondents partook in a single overarching conspiracy to manipulate the Rand. In this regard, despite the Tribunal having noted that the Commission’s referral “contains adequate details that have enabled us to conclude that the Referral, as a whole, prima facie, shows that there was a [single overall conspiracy] between the foreign and local banks to manipulate trading in the USD/ZAR currency pair”, the Respondents maintain that the case cannot proceed until this onus has been fully discharged.

Despite various developments over the past years, including a number of unsuccessful exception, objection, dismissal and strike out applications brought by the Respondents relating to jurisdiction, prescription and lack of particularity as well as successful joinder applications (in respect of the primary case) by the Commission, the case has not substantively progressed, and it currently stands to become one of the longest running matters before the competition authorities.

One of the Respondent’s Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”), a multinational British Bank, has also recently entered into a settlement agreement with the Commission, in terms of which it admitted liability to the manipulation of the USD/ZAR currency pair and agreed to pay an administrative penalty of c.ZAR 42 million. SCB’s settlement follows a similar settlement between the Commission and Citibank in 2017. The Commission did not seek penalties against ABSA Bank, Barclays Capital and Barclays Bank as these Respondents had applied and were granted leniency in terms of the Commission’ Corporate Leniency Policy.  

 The Tribunal and CAC did, however, in March this year, require that the Commission file a new referral affidavit in order to substantiate the case that it had previously pleaded insufficiently. As to the Respondent’s argument that the Commission could not initiate complaint referrals absent the initiation of an investigation, the Tribunal noted that while the Commission needs to commence an investigation against a Respondent specifically to be able to initiate a complain referral against them, it clarified that whether such initiation is express or tacit, is immaterial. The Tribunal further noted that to oblige the Commission to specifically mention each respondent in its complaint to the Tribunal would lead to an absurd outcome, namely that the Commission would be precluded from joining potential or even self-confessed member(s) of a cartel subsequent to its complaint referral.

As it stands, the CAC continues to hear arguments on behalf of 13 banks, predominantly regarding evidence as to their involvement in the alleged “single overarching conspiracy”, and while the Respondents have spared no expense in defending their case, the competition authorities have in no way backed down.

This is an important case, but has also served as an important precedent setting case in relation to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter involving foreign entities (i.e., whether the Commission has jurisdiction to hear a complaint where firms are neither domiciled nor carry business in the Republic of South Africa). In this regard, the CAC held that the Competition Tribunal could enjoy personal and subject matter jurisdiction over pure peregrini, provided that there were adequate connecting factors between the foreign firms’ conduct and the complaint from the Commission and upheld that Tribunal’s decision in relation to local peregrini that the Tribunal had jurisdiction where the qualified effects test was met and that a penalty sought should be confined to turnover within and exports from South Africa.

Primerio Director, Michael-James Currie provides the following insights: “the Forex case has, throughout the several bouts before the adjudicative bodies, confirmed that the thresholds for establishing jurisdiction over foreign entities and foreign conduct have been lowered. The Commission does however still have the onus on demonstrating that the conduct had a “substantial, direct and reasonably foreseeable effect in South Africa”. This will likely remain a contentious issue at trial as even South Africa’s National Treasury has confirmed that the conduct unlikely had any impact on the ZAR exchange rate. To the extent that individuals were prejudiced by the alleged conduct, it would be particularly interesting to see whether such victims would consider civil follow-on damages actions.”

[Gina Lodolo and Nicola Taljaard are lawyers in the competition law department at Primerio. The views expressed in this article are their own and not attributable to Primerio]