South Africa: Overview of the Price Discrimination and Buyer Power Draft Regulations

By Michael-James Currie

[*Michael-James Currie is a practising competition lawyer based in Johannesburg and a regular contributor to Africanantitrust]

The South African Competition Amendment Act was signed into law by the President on 13 February 2019.

Two of the contentious aspects which were raised during the drafting of the Amendment Bill related to the price discrimination prohibitions and the introduction of express “buyer power” provisions. The key areas of concern relates to the fact that these practices are not ordinarily anti-competitive but quite the opposite – they are generally  pro-competitive and more often than not lead to an increase in consumer welfare. Simply put, price discrimination allows firms to charge different customers a price relevant to what those customers are prepared to pay. In other words, it enables firms to ensure that the customer utility is maximized. If firms are obliged (or consider themselves required) to set prices at a uniform price, it is unlikely that the firm will adopt the “lowest price point” at which to sell its products but rather an average or the highest price point. This means that while customers who were prepared to pay more for a product at a certain price point may enjoy some discount, those customers who were only prepared to pay for the product at the lowest price point will either have to cough up more or will not buy the product altogether. Intuitively this results in a decrease in consumer welfare.

From a buyer power perspective, provided the downstream market is competitive, any buyer power exerted upstream will result in lower prices to consumers.

The Minister of the Department of Economic Development has published draft Regulations in relation to Price Discrimination and Buyer Power respectively in an effort to provide greater clarity as to how these provisions ought to be applied.

The Regulations will be particularly relevant to companies who have a market share in excess of 35% – therefore rebuttably presumed to be dominant – as they affect both the upstream and downstream pricing and more importantly, do not require any assessment of anti-competitive or consumer welfare effects. Instead, the provisions introduce a public interest standard against which to assess these practices. The Regulations expressly state that the assessment against the public interest standards does not require a consideration of anti-competitive or consumer welfare effects. In other words, a firm could be found liable to an administrative penalty despite its conduct being pro-competitive or enhancing consumer welfare.

Although the most contentious amendments brought about by the Amendment Act are aimed at dominant entities, it should be noted that the thresholds for being considered dominant in terms of the Competition Act are low. A firm is rebuttably presumed to be dominant if it has a market share (in a specific product or geographical market) between 35%-45% while a firm with a market share in excess of 45% is irrebuttably presumed to be dominant.

This raises the question as to why the price discrimination and buyer power provisions only apply to so-called “dominant entities”. The primary purpose for prescribing dominance thresholds based on market shares is that it serves an important (although contentious) screening process for purposes of determining when a firm is likely to have “market power”. The assumption being that the higher a firm’s market shares the more likely it is that the firm in question has market power. Market power in short refers to the ability of a firm to set prices above a competitive level for a sustained period of time. Consequently, assessing a firms’ “market power” is the crucial for purposes of determining whether a firm’s conduct is anti-competitive or harmful to consumers. Turning to the draft Regulations, however, if anti-competitive effects or consumer welfare are not factors taken into account when assessing the conduct against the price discrimination or buy power provisions from a public interest perspective, then there is no rationale link between “dominant firms” and the prohibited conduct itself.

The lack of economic rationale supporting the objectives of the Act’s amendments together with the Regulations benchmarks results in a legal framework which seems uncertain, subjective and risks dampening pro-competitive conduct. John Oxenham, Director at Primerio says that the Bill, together with the Regulations, has the potential to have a dampening effect on pro-competitive conduct as firms may be overly cautious in their commercial practices as the risk of “getting it wrong” exposes firms to potential administrative penalties and reputational risk.

What follows, however, is a high level summary of the legal framework insofar as it applies to price discrimination and buyer power.

In relation to the price discrimination and buyer power provisions, it is noteworthy that:

  • the impact on small, medium and HDI owned firms is separate and independent from any assessment as to whether the alleged conduct is anti-competitive or adverse to the consumer welfare;
  • there is a reverse onus on the dominant entity to demonstrate that its conduct is justifiable once a prima facie case has been made out against the respondent; and
  • differentiating between customers or suppliers based only on “quantity” of products bought/sold (as the case may be) is essentially prohibited. There are, however, certain permissible grounds which justify differentiation in price or trading terms.

Price Discrimination

The Bill introduces a dual assessment for price discrimination in terms of which a firm can be found guilty of price discrimination either where its pricing has the effect or substantially lessening competition or where its pricing “impede[s] the ability of small and medium businesses and firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons to participate effectively.” It has further been made clear by way of the Draft Regulations that under the second assessment, there is no need for a complainant to show any anti-competitive or consumer harm – a complainant only needs to demonstrate a hindrance to being able to participate effectively in the market.

It is also an offence for a firm to avoid or refuse selling goods or services to a purchaser who is a small or medium business or controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons in order to circumvent the operation of section 9.

Once a prima facie case has been made out by a complainant, the onus rests on the dominant entity (as the respondent) to demonstrate that its pricing strategy does not impede the ability of small businesses or firms owned by historically disadvantaged persons to participate effectively in the market (and that it has not avoided or refused selling to a particular purchaser).

The Bill expressly precludes a dominant entity relying on “different quantities” alone as a defence if there is a prima facie case of price discrimination which impedes the ability of small, medium or HDI owned firms to “participate effectively” in the market. In other words, the Bill is aimed at protecting businesses who are unable to obtain the same prices as larger customers due only to their limited size.

The draft Regulations published in terms of section 9(4) sets out the relevant factors and benchmarks for determining whether the practice set out in subsection (1)(a)(ii) impedes the ability of a small and medium business or a firm owned  or  controlled  by  a  historically  disadvantaged person, to “participate effectively”.

The Regulations set out further factors which ought to be taken into account when assessing the impact that the price discrimination has customers. There must, however, be a causal connection between the price discrimination and the complainant’s inability to participate effectively in the market. “Participate effectively” is defined as the “ability of or the opportunity for firms to sustain themselves in the market”.

Buyer Power

In terms of the Regulations, a dominant firm, in a sector designated by the Minister, is prohibited from imposing unfair prices or trading conditions on “a supplier that is a small and medium business or a firm controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons…”.  It is also an offence for the dominant firm to refuse or avoid purchasing from such a supplier.

This includes discounts, rebates, commissions, allowances and credit and that firms cannot contract out of the rights contained in this sections.

A price/condition will be unfair if it is inferior relative to other suppliers and there is no reasonable rationale for the difference or where it impedes the ability of a firm to sustainably operate and grow its business. A designated supplier may not be prejudiced based on its size and accordingly volume based differences are not justifiable as a standalone defence.

With regard to ‘trading conditions’, the Regulations sets out various examples of terms which are impermissible vis-à-vis designated suppliers. These include, inter alia, terms which unreasonably transfers risk/costs to the suppliers, is one sided or bares no relation to the objective of the supply agreement and unfair payment terms.

Examples of unfair trading terms include:

  • Trading without a contract, which imposes uncertainty and risk on the supplier, whilst at the same time denying them standard contractual rights and protections;
  • Imposing costs or risks onto the supplier that are not spelt out in a clear and unambiguous manner or quantified within the supply contract;
  • Unilateral changes in the supply terms that are detrimental to the supplier;
  • Retrospectively changing supply terms of a material nature to the detriment of the supplier;
  • Excessively long payment terms;
  • An unreasonable transfer of the buyer’s costs of promotion and marketing onto the supplier; and
  • Transfer of the buyer’s risks of wastage or shrinkage onto the supplier where it is not due to the supplier’s negligence or fault.

It is unfortunate that the Draft Regulations were published after the Bill itself has already been passed by Parliament. At the time of promulgating the Bill, assurances were given that the Regulations would provide clarity and objectivity in relation to the price discrimination provisions in particular. The Draft Regulations have not addressed the concerns raised by many commentators during the promulgation of the Bill. Instead, the Draft Regulations are now ostensibly being justified on the basis that Parliament has approved the Bill and is, therefore, in keeping with the objectives of the Bill. This “circular logic” is a process flaw in the promulgation process, which has seemingly been capitalized on by the Department of Economic Development.

Regardless, it is unlikely that their will be a materiel amendments to the draft Regulations and therefore the new landscape in relation to price discrimination and buyer power enforcement is likely to become effective imminently – raising unique but important challenges from a compliance perspective.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Antitrust Overhaul: South Africa to amend Competition Act today

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is expected to sign the Competition Amendment Bill into law today, February 13, 2019, continuing a busy seven-day streak for major legislative antitrust developments on the continent (see here). The new law will be amending the venerable Competition Act, one of the preëminent antitrust statutes of the continent.  The amendment has been pushed for by Minister for Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel.  The official Presidential commentary on today’s signing notes the novel fights against “concentration and economic exclusion as core challenges” to the country’s growth, as well as the perceived dangers of economic exclusion from major markets of small and black-owned businesses.

As a trio of competition attorneys write in a recent article in the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, the Amendment Bill alters key provisions of the South African Competition Act focusing specifically on the redistribution of wealth and transformation of ownership in lieu of pursuing traditional antitrust goals.

The Bill provides for greater ministerial intervention at the initial stage of a merger (based on national security), during the merger investigation (based on public-interest grounds) and broadens the right of appeals to parties outside the merger control review.

The Bill lowers the standard that the South African Competition Commission must meet to prosecute cases and foreshadows a risk of increased third-party interventionism more generally.

The departure from a traditional substantial lessening of competition (SLC) test to an adverse effects-based test, which takes public interests considerations into account, is likely to result in the injection of greater subjectivity into the decision-making process and parties’ increased difficulty in self-assessment of conduct particularly in relation to dominant firms.

AAT has published further articles on the topic here, here, and here.

Minister Patel speaks

Minister Patel speaks

Breaking News: Nigerian Competition Act Signed into Law

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari has signed the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Bill into law (the “Competition Act”).

nigeriaAfter years of deliberations, the legislative process is now complete, and with the establishment of a Competition Commission and Competition Tribunal, Nigeria is the latest African jurisdiction to establish a dedicated antitrust authority.

From a merger-control perspective, the Competition Act and the Commission’s jurisdiction will ultimately supersede the ‘placebo antitrust’ role historically played by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has thus far received and assessed merger notifications above certain turnover thresholds, pursuant to the Investments and Securities Act.  The Act repeals the Consumer Protection Act, which did not contain stand-alone antitrust provisions.

Michael-James Currie, a competition lawyer advising client across Africa, says the new Competition Act applies broadly to all commercial activities within Nigeria, but also to conduct outside of Nigeria, if the person or company is a Nigerian resident or incorporated in Nigeria or products are sold into Nigeria.  Furthermore, any acquisition or change of control of a business or asset outside of Nigeria which results in the change of control of an asset or business in Nigeria will also fall within the jurisdiction of the Competition Act.

The Commission has substantial powers, including considering and approving mergers, declaring business practices as amounting to abuse of dominance, prohibiting price discrimination or declaring unlawful any agreement which is in contravention of the Competition Act.

From an investigatory perspective, the Commission may subpoena witnesses or, upon obtaining a search warrant, conduct dawn raids, consistent with international best practices.

Any reviews or appeals in relation to a decision taken by the Commission may be made to the Competition Tribunal.

In relation to prohibited conduct, any agreement which has the effect or likely effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in any market is unlawful. Currie notes that the Act in particular prohibits collusive arrangements but also various forms of unilateral conduct include tying or bundling or limitations on the production or distribution of goods. John Oxenham, director at Primerio, echoes these sentiments and confirms that the Act provides for a rule-of-reason analysis.  He notes further that, in addition to the above general prohibitions, the Act also prohibits minimum resale price maintenance.

Fellow Primerio Director, Andreas Stargard, notes that the “monopolisation” prohibition against abuse of dominance mirrors those typically found in most jurisdictions; the wording of the Act appears to be influenced largely by the South African Competition Act.  That said, the test for dominance is essentially whether a firm is able to exert market power and, unlike South Africa, cannot be based on market-share thresholds alone.  In sum, he concludes:

“This latest piece of competition legislation was first introduced in 2011 by Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara from Bauchi State, who perhaps not surprisingly happens to be an attorney, and co-sponsored by Sen. Ahmed Lawan (Yobe North).

Its now final — and successful — iteration that was signed into law this week brings Africa’s largest economy into the fold of modern antitrust jurisdictions.  Many have called for this to happen for years [see hereand here).  Our firm’s West Africa team is eager to work on matters arising under the Act.”

The Bill's sponsor, Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara

One of the Bill’s sponsors, Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara

In terms of penalties, an antitrust violation attracts both a potential administrative penalty (capped at 10% of the respondent’s annual turnover) and criminal liability for directors who commit an offence, notes Currie, pointing to a  maximum of three years imprisonment as a fairly severe white-collar sentence potential.  It remains unclear to-date whether the turnover calculation for purposes of the administrative penalty determination refers to local or worldwide revenues, observes Stargard.

In relation to merger control, Oxenham notes that the Competition Act provides further clarity as to the type of transactions which require mandatory notification, notably including joint ventures, which were previously not identified by name under the SEC’s legislative regime.  The Act has introduced both de facto and de jure forms of control as potential triggers for merger notification. The Commission has not yet published Regulations which will prescribe turnover thresholds for “small” and “large” mergers. Both Oxenham and Currie point out that based on the wording of the Act, there seems to be a substantial amount of similarity between the Nigerian Act and the merger control process in South Africa including time frames involved and the introduction of public interest assessment in merger control.

This is not surprising, as the South African Competition Commission (SACC) has, through the African Competition Forum, been instrumental in advocating a robust competition regime. Furthermore, Oxenham suggests that there may be substantial amount of cooperation and assistance provided by the SACC to their Nigerian counterparts.

[AfricanAntitrust will provide further updates in relation to the Nigerian Competition Act and appreciates the input from leading antitrust practitioners and the on-going support of the Primerio team. To contact a Primerio representatives, please click here ]

Botswana Competition Authority: Exception Application Backfires for Choppies-Payless Buying Group

The Competition Authority of Botswana (CA) rejected an exemption application brought by two FMCG players. The applicants, Choppies Distribution Centre and Payless Supermarkets, sought to justify their application by demonstrating that by increasing their buyer power the applicants would be able to ensure lower prices and better quality products for consumers and that these pro-competitive outcomes outweigh any anti-competitive effects.

After evaluating the exemption application, the CA found that the agreement between Choppies and Payless would result in a substantial lessening of competition. In particular, the CA held that:

  • There is no competition between Choppies and Payless, the duo had monthly promotions wherein they had the same goods on promotion at identical or similar prices and the pamphlets were an exact replica of each other.  
  • The two stores had alleged that Choppies would not benefit from the arrangement. It however emerged that Choppies was benefiting, particularly given, the quantity of Choppies in house brands found in Payless stores. Payless did not have any in house brands, but instead sold a variety of Choppies goods in large volumes.
  • Further, the Authority finds that the granting of an exemption to the applicants would be in effect granting the Choppies and Payless the leeway to continue with their price fixing and distortion of competition.

The CA was also not convinced that there were any other public interest benefits which would outweigh the anti-competitive effects referred to above.

This exemption application followed a similar application in 2014 which was also rejected.

Primerio Director, John Oxenham, says that this application demonstrates the importance of ensuring that objective and credible economic evidence accompanies an exemption application in order to prove the likely economic benefits to the public.

When asked to comment, Michael-James Currie, a competition lawyer practising across sub-Saharan Africa, says that buyer power in the context of FMCG retailers is a particularly topical issue not only in Botswana but also in South Africa where buyer power has specifically been included in the Competition Amendment Bill (which is soon to be brought into effect) as well as Kenya (who have also specifically included abuse of buyer power as a standalone provision). The motivation behind these legislative amendments, says Currie, follow largely as a result of concerns raised by the respective competition agencies of South Africa and Kenya regarding the buyer power which large retailers exert on small suppliers.

It is not yet clear whether Choppies-Payless proceed to appeal the CA’s decision or whether they will seek to pursue a fresh exemption application bolstered with more compelling economic evidence.  To the extent that the applicants abide by the CA’s decision, they will be required to dissolve their “buying group agreement” within three months.

 

Breaking: South African Competition Amendment Bill passed by Parliament

AAT has closely monitored the progress of the Competition Amendment Bill and provided commentary to the Bill from leading local and international competition practitioners.

This is to update our readers that the Amendment Bill was passed in the National Assembly on 23 October 2018. The Bill still requires the National Council of Provinces to approve the Bill, following that the President’s consent – both of these procedural steps are likely to be mere formalities in light of the National Assembly’s decision to approve the Bill.

AAT expects that the Bill will be brought into effect imminently and likely without any material grace period for parties to assure compliance with its onerous provisions.

The Bill passed by the National Assembly has been amend mended from the draft Bill which was placed before Parliament’s Portfolio Committee.  The key contentious provisions of the Bill, however, remain largely unchanged.

To access a copy of the Bill passed by Parliament, click here.

Panel highlights SA Competition Amendment Bill’s pitfalls

As AAT has reported on extensively, the South African Competition Amendment Bill, currently pending in Parliament, is likely to be adopted in short order in its current draft form.

It carries with it significant, and in our view, adverse, effects that will burden companies trying to conduct business or invest in South Africa. These burdens will be particularly onerous on foreign entities wishing to enter the market by acquisitions, as well as any firm having a market share approaching the presumptive threshold of dominance, namely 35%

On Wednesday, 17 October 2018, the law firms of Primerio and Norton Incorporated held an in-depth seminar and round-table discussion on the ramifications of the Competition Amendment Bill. The setting was an intimate “fireside chat“ with business and in-house legal representatives from leading companies, active across a variety of sectors in the South African economy.

Moderated and given an international pan-African perspective by Primerio partner Andreas Stargard, the panel included colleagues John Oxenham and Michael-James Currie, who delved into the details of the proposed amendments to the existing Competition Act, covered extensively by AAT here.

As of today, 18 October 2018, the Bill appears set to be promulgated.  The SA Parliament’s committee on economic development has rubber-stamped the proposed amendments after a prior committee walk-out staged by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), in opposition to the Bill. DA MP and economic development spokesperson Michael Cardo states:

The ANC rammed the Competition Amendment Bill through the committee on economic development, and adopted a report agreeing to various amendments. To make sure they had the numbers for a quorum, the ANC bussed in two never-seen-before members to act as pliant yes men and women. Questions from the DA to the minister… This bill is going to have far-reaching consequences for the economy. It gives both the minister and the competition authorities a great deal of power to try and reshape the economy. It is unfortunate that the ANC, and the committee chair in particular, have suspended their critical faculties to force through this controversial bill and behaved like puppets on a string pulled by the minister of economic development.”

The Amendment Bill introduces significant powers for ministerial intervention and bestows greater powers on the Competition Commission, the investigatory body of the competition authorities in South Africa.

The panel discussion provided invaluable insights into the driving forces behind the Bill and ultimately what this means for companies in South Africa as it certainly won’t be business as usual if the Amendment Bill is brought into effect – particularly not for dominant entities.

[If you attended the panel discussion and would like to provide feedback to the panelists or would generally like to get in touch with the panelists, please send an email to editor@africanantitrust.com and we will put you in touch with the relevant individuals]

 

COMESA news: Uganda gets on board, fields new CCC Board Chair

For the small but growing segment of COMESA Competition Commission observers in the world, some recent developments relating to a key member state may have gone unnoticed: the CCC held a training workshop for Ugandan officials, including over 110 ministerial District Commercial Officers, in sensitizing them to competition-law issues, spotting antitrust offences, and catalysing the enactment of robust competition legislation in the East African nation, whose GDP exceeds $25 billion and has exhibited consistent growth over the past several years.

CCC’s Uganda training workshop

Says Andreas Stargard, a competition partner with African boutique firm Primerio Ltd.:

This development of the CCC supporting domestic antitrust enforcement and legislative efforts is not only affirmatively required by the COMESA Treaty, obligating member states to enact legislation comporting with the CCC Regulations, but has long been foreshadowed by CCC officials.

For example, at this year’s region-wide sensitization workshop held by the CCC in Nairobi, Kenya, the agency’s leadership assured me personally that they would undertake these capacity-building programmes throughout COMESA member states, especially those with less-developed competition-law regimes, including Uganda.

CCC Board Chair Patrick Okilangole (Uganda)

Uganda is a key COMESA country that does not have a functioning antitrust enforcement body or underlying legislation.  Mr. Stargard adds that “the CCC’s choice of Uganda as a target jurisdiction may, in addition, also have been influenced by the fact that the current CCC Board Chairman is Patrick Okilangole, a Ugandan national,” whose appointment to the Commission’s Board was recently renewed in July.

Competition Enforcement Update – Eastern & Southern Region

COMESA

The COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) has vowed to develop a system which will allow the CCC to have better oversight (to in turn ensure effective enforcement) over anti-competitive behaviour in member states.

This follows extensive research conducted by the CCC’s which indicates that anti-competitive practices are increasingly prevalent throughout its member states and is causing consumer harm.

George Lipimile, CEO of the CCC says that while protective measures put in place by national governments (aimed at shielding their companies from competition) is a serious threat to the region as cartels are prevalent is almost all sectors of the economy.

The CCC has also singled out the banking sector, stating that: “[w]e [CCC] have seen quite a lot of abuse in terms of non-disclosure of critical information to consumers”.

Andreas Stargard, antitrust lawyer at Primerio Ltd., attributes the increase in anti-competitive behaviour in the region to a lack of awareness of consumers’ rights groups to recourse under competition laws. “Antitrust is a comparatively new and developing phenomenon in most of the COMESA member states, and it will take time for local authorities to increase public awareness around the benefits of antitrust to consumers”, he says. “One way to increase such awareness is, of course, closer engagement of private legal consultants as well as media, whether online, print, or radio and television.”

The CCC has vowed to intensify efforts to increase awareness within member states and to ensure effective and robust enforcement of competition laws in the region.

KENYA
The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) has rejected a study (presented at the National Assembly Committee on Communication, Information and Innovation) by the Communications Authority which aims to introduce price capping in the telecommunications sector as a means to ‘remedy’ high concentration in the market.

In dismissing the study, the CAK Director General Kariuki Wang’ombe stated that “[i]t is important to highlight that dominance is not an illegality. What is an illegality is the abuse of dominance position. The intervention of a regulator should be informed by abuse of dominance position.”

Ruth Mosoti, a leading Kenyan competition practitioner, notes that the CAK, in an effort to steer clear of being considered a pricing regulator, “proposed that the Communications Authority focus on ensuring the sharing of resources by dominant firms (so as to ease barriers to entry and reduce switching costs so as to facilitate the entry and participation of competitors in the market) as opposed to setting a price cap.”

The CAK further urged the Assembly Committee to facilitate co-operation between the CAK and the Communications Authority in order to ensure effective regulation in the sector. “I request this committee to come up with a way of compelling the regulators to work together for the betterment of this sector. It might not be easy for only one regulator to regulate this sector. This issue is more of personal relationship,” Kariuki said.

Safricom Kenya CEO, in response, expressed his concerns stating that “[t]he operators who are seeking these interventions today will have been taught not to invest but instead to rely upon the infrastructure that is built by others. They will have been taught not to innovate as innovations will be served to them on a silver platter”.

NAMIBIA

Following an announcement by the Namibia Taxi and Transport Union (NTTU) that taxi fares will increase (following approval of its members at a joint meeting), the Namibia Competition Commission (NCC) warned the taxi operators to follow due process in seeking to introduce joint price increases to avoid falling foul of the Namibia Competition Act (Competition Act).

In terms of the Namibia Road Traffic and Transport Act (Transport Act), the Transport Board may endorse a collusive price increase in the industry (of not more than 10%). The NTTU has, however, announced that despite their understanding that the Transport Act stipulates that any fare increase should not be more than 10%, they will continue to implement the 50% price increase, with or without approval.

The NCC has, therefore, warned taxi operators that any collusive price increase (which is contrary to the Transport Act) will amount to a contravention of the Competition Act. The NNC released a statement saying “[t]axi operators who collusively and intentionally impose fixed taxi fare increases without following the due process set out in the Road Transport Act will render themselves liable in terms of the Competition Act and thereby attract a formal investigation which may lead to punitive civil and/or criminal sanctions”.

The NCC has previously resolved not to investigate Bus and Taxi Associations for price fixing, provided that such conduct was authorised under the Transport Act.

John Oxenham, also a director at Primerio Ltd. notes that the passenger transport is sector is increasingly considered a priority sector in Africa with Namibia’s neighbouring country, South Africa, having commenced a market inquiry into the public passenger transport sector which, inter alia, will assess the impact of ride-hail apps such as Uber on competition in the traditional taxi sector.

#COMESA21: New member states, new commissioners

#COMESA21

In a milestone enlargement of the (now formerly) 19-member COMESA region, Tunisia and Somalia have acceded to the trade bloc at the 20th COMESA Summit on 19th July 2018, creating #COMESA21 – Africa’s largest free trade region.

Their application to join had been pending since 2016.  Under the Treaty, the new members will be bound by the provisions of the Treaty and must deposit their formal instrument of acceptance of the terms of admission with the Secretary General, together with an instrument of accession pursuant to Articles 194 and 195 of the Treaty with regard to a State admitted to full membership.  Says Primerio’s Andreas Stargard, “with the privilege of membership comes the obligation of agreeing to abide by the antitrust rules promulgated under the COMESA Treaty.  This includes the Competition Commission’s procedural and substantive rules and notably its merger regulations.  It remains to be seen how the still weakened bureaucratic structure of the Somali Republic will be able to implement the strictures of a working competition-law regime…

Indeed, the CCC’s recent Notice No. 2/2018 provides that “the provisions of the COMESA Competition Regulations of 2004, and its accompanying rules, shall be enforceable in the territories of the Republic of Tunisia and the Federal Republic of Somalia with immediate effect.”

Personnel News 2018

In addition to gaining two new member states, COMESA also underwent personnel changes, adding an experienced antitrust practitioner, Zimbabwean Competition and Tariff Commission director, Ellen Ruparanganda, as one of the nine CCC commissioners, for a term of three years.  Besides Ms. Ruparanganda, Francis Lebon (Seychelles), Ali Hamadou Ali Kako (Djibouti), Thembelihle Dube (Eswatini, formerly Swaziland), Danson Buya Mungatana (Kenya), Michael Teklu Beyene (Ethiopia), Charlotte Wezi Malonda (Malawi), Islam Tagelsir Ahmed Alhasan (Sudan), and Brian Muletambo Lingela (Zambia) were also sworn in.

South Africa Competition Tribunal: Merging Parties Penalised for Failure to Comply with Public Interest Conditions

By Michael-James Currie

On 29 June 2018, the South African Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) penalised the RTO Group R75 000 for failing to comply with the Tribunal’s conditional merger approval in respect of two companies now within the RTI stable, Warehouseit and Courierit. The Tribunal approved the large merger in August 2015.

In terms of the Tribunal’s merger approval, a moratorium on merger specific retrenchments for a two year period was imposed – now a frequently imposed public interest related condition by the competition agencies in South Africa.

RTI, however, was penalised not for retrenching any employees during this window but for failure to adhere to the monitoring obligations as set out in the Tribunal’s conditional approval certificate.

In this regard, the merging parties were obliged to notify their employees (and Courierit’s subcontractors) of the conditions to the merger approval within five days of the merger approval date. The merging parties were also obliged to provide the Competition Commission with an affidavit confirming that the obligations in terms of the conditions had been complied with.

By way of a consent order, RTI admitted that it failed to comply with its monitoring obligations and agreed to pay an administrative penalty for breaching the Tribunal’s conditional merger approval.

Although there have been a limited number of cases in respect of which an administrative penalty has been imposed for a breach of the merger conditions, this case demonstrates the importance of fully complying with the terms set out by way of a conditional merger approval.

Furthermore, although notifying the employees of the relevant conditions may not have been a particularly onus obligation, merging parties should take particular cognisance of monitoring and reporting obligations when negotiating conditions with the Competition Commission. Merging parties understandably place greater emphasis on the substantive aspects of the conditions and may underestimate the reporting obligations related thereto – particularly if conditions are being negotiated at the eleventh hour (which is not uncommon).

While there are mechanism’s available to merging parties to remedy any patently unworkable aspects contained in merger approval conditions, it is advisable to ensure that the conditions are practical and capable of being adhered to in full prior to being finalised – assuming the merging parties have that luxury.

[Michael-James Currie is a South African based competition lawyer and practices across Sub-Saharan Africa]