Category: AAT exclusive

Kenya: Recent Amendments to the Act adds an Interesting Dimension to the Abuse of Dominance Provisions

Posted on by Editor

Introduction of Abuse of ‘Buyer Power’ Provisions Muddies the Water

Ruth Mosoti

By Michael-James Currie and Ruth Mosoti

currie2

In November last year, the editors of Africanantitrust indicated that a number of amendments to the Kenya Competition Act of 2010 were being proposed by way of the Competition Amendment Bill (Amendment Bill) in the article Competition Amendment Bill to bring about Radical changes to the Act

The Amendment Bill was assented to by the President in December 2016 and the amendments are, therefore, effective.

Although most of the amendments which are particularly noteworthy were addressed in the above article, a particularly noteworthy amendment, and very much the focus of this article, is the newly introduced prohibition of an abuse of “buyer power”. In this regard, Section 24 of the Act, which deals with abuse of dominance generally, has been amended to also cater for an abuse of “buyer power.”

Section 24 of the Act was, even prior to the introduction of “buyer power” a particularly challenging provision to interpret and it has not been clear how the provisions relating to an abuse of dominance would ultimately be assessed.

By way of background, the definition of “dominance” in the Act, effectively states that a firm will be considered dominant if that firm has greater than 50% market share

The Act goes on to list, without being exhaustive, a number of practices which would typically constitute an abuse of dominance including:

  • imposing unfair purchasing or selling prices;
  • limiting or restricting output, market access or technological advancements;
  • tying and/or bundling as part of contractual terms; or
  • abusing intellectual property rights.

The Act does not provide further guidance as to what would precisely constitute an “abuse” of dominance and under what circumstances a purchasing or selling price would be deemed to be “unfair”.

The abuse of dominance provisions do not necessarily, therefore, appear to be directly linked to the promotion or maintenance of competition in the market. Once it is shown that a firm has more than 50% market share, firms are in treacherous terrain as the threshold for engaging in “abuse” of dominance is relatively low when compared to many other comparable jurisdictions which generally cater for a rule of reason defence or at least provide greater guidance as to what conduct would constitute a per se violation.

By way of an example, in terms of the South Africa Competition Act, a dominant firm is per se prohibited from charging an “excessive price”. The South African Competition Act does, however, define an “excessive price” as one which “bears no reasonable relation to the economic value thereof”. Despite this definition, further guidance has been sought but the competition authorities as to what, in turn, constitutes a “reasonable” and “economic value.”

Over and above certain identified acts of abuse of dominance, the South African Competition Act also includes for a “catch-all” abuse of dominance provision. However, the conduct will only amount to an “abuse” if there is an anti-competitive effect which cannot be justified by a rule of reason analysis.

The comparison with the South African Competition Act is useful as the Kenyan Competition Act does not provide for a similar assessment as does its South African counter-part. For instance, it is not clear how predatory pricing or excessive pricing would be evaluated under the Kenyan Act. Presumably this would fall under the preclusion of charging an “unfair” selling price, which leads one back to the question as to what constitutes an “unfair” price.

In addition to the above, the recent addition of “buyer power” to the abuse of dominance provisions has added to the complexity and risk to firms on the procurement side.

“Buyer power” is defined as the “the influence exerted by an undertaking in the position or group of undertakings in the position of a purchaser of a product or service to obtain from a supplier more favourable terms, or to impose long term opportunity costs including harm or withheld benefit which, if carried out, would be significantly disproportionate to any resulting long term cost to the undertaking or group of undertakings.”

Furthermore, in considering whether a firm has “buyer power” the following factors will be considered:

  • the nature of the contractual terms;
  • the payment requested for access infrastructure; and
  • the price paid to suppliers.

Accordingly, the crux of the rather cumbersome definition is that an undertaking will only be considered to have “buying power” if that undertaking(s) has simultaneously actually abused its’ buying power. In other words, there is no distinction between what constitutes “buying power” and what constitutes an “abuse” of buying power. The Act’s definition of “buying power” is, therefore, all encompassing.

Although the above definition is somewhat unclear, it should be noted that the Competition Authority of Kenya, together with Parliament and other stakeholders intend developing rules which would hopefully clarify how these provisions will ultimately be evaluated.

A further important point to note is that it is not a requirement that a firm be ‘dominant’ in order to be considered to have “buying power”. Whether it was the intention of the legislator to require a firm to first be ‘dominant’ before it could be prosecuted for “abuse of buyer power” is not entirely clear. The definition of “buying power” is remarkably silent on this issue.

The fact that the preclusion of an abuse of buyer power necessitates that a firm be dominant could be inferred by the fact that provision is inserted under Section 24 (the abuse of dominance provisions).

However, the definition of “buyer power” caters for a situation where a group of undertakings, such as when a buying group, is formed, exert buyer power, the group commits an offence. Accordingly, it may have been that the legislator was contemplating a situation in which a group of undertakings, such as a buying group collectively meets the ‘dominance’ threshold (i.e. a greater than 50% market share).

Alternatively, it could have been the intention of the legislator that the abuse of buyer power has no direct link to dominance as such and that once a firm or group of firms satisfy the definition of “buyer power”, irrespective of their market shares, the provision is triggered.

In a number of developing countries such as Turkey, South Africa and Botswana have conducted market inquiries into the grocery retail sector. Although the focus of these inquiries are relatively broad, a common focus of all the market inquiries in this sector relates to the role that the large retailers play in the market. In particular, suppliers and competition agencies are often concerned with the buying power which large retailers could exert on suppliers and that the trading terms are unfair, particularly for smaller retailers who are not always in a position to pay for shelf space, access fees or offer the discounts demanded by the retailers.

In many instances, however, the large retailers are not ‘dominant’ and a complainant would need to demonstrate that the buying power exerted by the large retailer is in fact anti-competitive.

The Kenyan Competition Authority may have thought to pre-empt this challenge and therefore included the “abuse of dominance” provisions without requiring a firm to actually be dominant for the provision to be triggered. Furthermore, the definition of “buying power” and the absence of any requirement that the conduct must in fact be anti-competitive may have been an attempt by the legislator to lower the threshold in an effort to assist a complainant in cases where a purchaser, such as a large retailer, exerts “buyer power”, but is not “dominant” in the market.

The absence of any objective qualification to assess when a firm has exerted “buyer power” in an “unfair” manner may open the litigation floodgates. A further reason why it is important that the authorities publish rules to assist with the interpretation and implementation of the “abuse of buyer” power provisions.

In terms of enforcement, the Act was previously silent on the role of the Authority upon the conclusion of an abuse of dominance investigation and the only option lay on criminal prosecution of the offending undertaking. The recent amendments to the Act now allows the Authority to impose fines of up to 10% of the annual turnover of the offending undertaking(s).

New Zambian Settlement Guidelines: A Risky Reprieve

Posted on by Editor

By AAT Senior Contributor, Michael-James Currie & Mweshi Mutuna, Pr1merio competition advocate (Zambia)

The Zambian Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (‘CCPC’) has recently published draft settlement guidelines (‘Draft Guidelines’) for respondents who have allegedly engaged in conduct in contravention of the domestic Competition and Consumer Protection Act (‘Act’).

zambiaThe Draft Guidelines have been published in addition to the ‘Leniency Programme’ as well as the ‘Fines Guidelines’ published earlier this year (as well as the 2015 Merger Guidelines), and essentially sets out a framework within which respondent parties may engage the CCPC for purposes of reaching a settlement agreement for alleged contraventions of the Act.

Notably, the Draft Guidelines will be binding on the CCPC which is an important aspect of ensuring a transparent and objective approach to settlement negotiations. Furthermore, the Draft Guidelines emphasise that respondents should be fully informed of the case against them prior to settling. In this regard, the Draft Guidelines provide for an initial stage of the settlement negotiations (essentially an expression of interest) which follows from a formal request by a firm expressing an interest to settle.

Should the CCPC decide to proceed with settlement negotiations, the CCPC must, within 21 days, provide the respondent party with information as to the nature of the case against the respondent. This includes disclosing the alleged facts and the classification of those facts, the gravity and duration of the alleged conduct, the attribution of liability (which we discuss further below) and the evidence relied on by the CCPC to support the complaint.

currie2
The authors, Mr. Currie & Ms. Mutuna

The purpose of disclosing these facts to a respondent is to afford a respondent the opportunity to meaningfully consider and evaluate the case against it in order to make an informed decision whether to settle or not.

Assuming that an expression of interest in settling the matter is established by both parties, the CCPC will then proceed by requesting that the respondent provide a formal “settlement submission” within 15 days of the CCPC’s request. Included in the settlement submission, must be a clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of liability (which includes a summary of the pertinent facts, duration and the respondent’s participation in the anticompetitive conduct) and the maximum settlement quantum which the respondent is prepared to pay by way of an administrative penalty.

Should the CCPC accept the settlement submission, the CCPC will then commence with drafting and ultimately publishing a statement of objections (‘SO’) which essentially captures the material terms of the settlement submission. This is largely a necessary procedural step although the respondent party may object to the SO should it not correctly record the terms of the settlement agreement.

Following the publication of the SO, the CCPC will, subject to any challenges to the SO, proceed formally to make the settlement agreement a final decision as required by the Act.

Risky Business?

The above framework appears to be relatively straightforward and balanced, assuming that the parties in fact do reach a settlement agreement. The position is somewhat different in the event that settlement negotiations breakdown, particularly if the negotiations are already at a relatively advanced stage.

Most notably, settlement negotiations in terms of the Draft Guidelines are not conduced on a “without prejudice” basis. To the contrary, the Draft Guidelines states that the CCPC has the right to adopt a SO which does not reflect the parties’ settlement submission. In this event, the normal procedures for investigating and prosecuting a complaint as set out in the Act will apply.

In the event that the CCPC elects not to accept a settlement submission submitted by a respondent, the Draft Guidelines specifically state that “the acknowledgements provided by the parties in the settlement submission shall not be withdrawn and the Commission reserves the right to use the information submitted for its investigation”.

This paragraph is controversial as it places a substantial risk on a party making a settlement submission with no guarantee that the settlement proffer will be accepted by the CCPC, while at the same time, the respondent party exposes itself by making admissions which may be used against it in the course of a normal complaint investigation and determination by the CCPC.

Whether or not the financial incentive to respondents would entice a respondent to, nonetheless, engage in settlement discussions in terms of the Draft Guidelines is sufficient, only time will tell. In this regard, however, the Draft Guidelines state that a firm who settles with the CCPC prior to the matter being referred to the Board will be limited to a maximum penalty of up to 4% of the firm’s annual turnover. Should the firm settle after the matter has been referred to the Board, the maximum penalty will be capped at 7% of the firm’s annual turnover.

Multi-Party Settlements: the More the Better?

A further interesting and rather novel aspect to the Draft Guidelines is the provision made for tripartite settlement negotiations. In this regard, the Draft Guidelines cater for a rather unusual mechanism by which multiple respondents in relation to the same investigation may approach the CCPC for purposes of reaching a settlement agreement.

Although referred to as “tripartite” negotiations, the Draft Guidelines state that when the CCPC initiates proceedings against two or more respondents, the CCPC will inform a respondent of the other respondents to the complaint. Should the respondent parties collectively wish to enter into settlement negotiations, the respondents should jointly appoint a duly authorised representative to act on their behalf. In the event that the respondent parties do settle with the CCPC, the fact that the respondents were represented by a jointly appointed representative will not prejudice them insofar as the CCPC making any finding as to the attribution of liability between the respondents is concerned.

While joint representation may be suitable in the case of merger-related offences (which may have been what was envisaged by the drafters hence the reference to “tripartite” negotiations), we believe that it is hard to imagine that the drafters anticipated that, should respondents to a cartel be invited to settle the complaint against them, the cartelists would then be required to embark on further collaborative efforts: this time to engage collectively in formulating a settlement strategy and decide how they are ultimately going to ‘split the bill’ should a settlement agreement be reached.

The issue of a multi-party settlement submission is further complicated in the event that a settlement proffer is not accepted by the CCPC following a multiparty settlement submission. As mentioned above, the settlement submission must contain an admission of liability which, in the case of cartel conduct, would invariably amount to the parties to the settlement proposal admitting to engaging in cartel conduct by fixing prices or allocating markets, by way of example, between each other.

Although, the Draft Guidelines is a welcome endeavour to provide respondents with a transparent and objective framework to utilise when engaging with the CCPC for purposes of reaching a settlement, the uncertainty and risk which flows from a rejection of the settlement proffer may prove to be an impediment in achieving the very objectives of the Draft Guidelines.

In this regard, we understand that the CCPC is currently considering revised guidelines which hopefully address the concerns raised above.

 

The WRAP: a short COMESA retrospective

Posted on by Editor

COMPETITION-LAW DEVELOPMENTS: A WRAP FROM THE COMP-CORNER

Issue 3 – October 2016

The editors and authors at AAT welcome you to the third edition of “The WRAP”: COMESA Competition Commission: What has taken place in past 10 months?

currie2
The author, Mr. Currie

In this instalment, Senior Contributor Michael James Currie takes a look back at the developments from the COMESA region in 2016.

As always, thank you for reading the WRAP, and remember to visit us at AAT for up-to-date competition-law news from the African continent.

         –Ed.

 

 

Notifying African M&A – balancing burdens & costs

Posted on by Editor

Merger filings in Africa remain costly and cumbersome

By AAT guest contributor Heather Irvine, Esq.

The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Competition Commission (COMESA) recently announced that it has received over US$3 million in merger filing fees between December 2015 and October 2016.

heatherirvineAbout half of these fees (approximately $1.5 million) were allocated to the national competition authorities in various COMESA states. However, competition authorities in COMESA member states – including Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe – continue to insist that merging parties lodge separate merger filings in their jurisdiction. This can add significant transactional costs – the filing fee in Kenya alone for a merger in which the merging parties combined generate more than KES 50 billion (about US $ 493 million) in Kenya is KES 2 million (nearly US $ 20 000). Since Kenya is one of the Continent’s largest economies, significant numbers of global transactions as well as those involving South African firms investing in African businesses are caught in the net.

Merging parties are in effect paying African national competition authorities twice to review exactly the same proposed merger. And they are not receiving quicker approvals or an easier fling process in return. Low merger thresholds mean that even relatively small transactions, often with no impact on competition at all, may trigger multiple filings. There is no explanation for why COMESA member states have failed to amend their local competition laws despite signing the COMESA treaty over 2 years ago.

Filing fees are even higher if a proposed cross-border African merger transaction involves a business in Tanzania or Swaziland– the national authorities there have recently insisted that filing fees must be calculated based on the merging parties’ global turnover (even though the statutory basis for these demands are not clear).

The problem will be exacerbated even further if more regional African competition authorities, like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the proposed East African Competition authority, commence active merger regulation.

Although memoranda of understanding were recently signed between South Africa and some other relatively experienced competition regulators on the Continent, like Kenya and Namibia, there are generally few formal procedures in place to harmonise merger filing requirements, synchronise the timing of reviews or align the approach of the regulators to either competition law or public interest issues.

The result is high filing fees, lots of duplicated effort and documents on the part of merging parties and the regulators, and slow merger reviews.

If African governments are serious about attracting global investors, they should prioritise the harmonisation of national and regional competition law regimes.

Copperweld elsewhere: Why SA is not pursuing fisheries “cartel”

Posted on by Editor

The concept of single economic entities and intra-company conspiracies

south_africaThis week, the South African Competition Commission and Minister Patel explained to the country’s National Assembly why they decided not to take any enforcement action against alleged collusion in the fisheries industry.
Andreas Stargard, an attorney with Pr1merio commercial advisors, explains:
The most succinct answer is quite simple: in short, it’s “Copperweld” all over again.
If that answer does not suffice, let’s unpack this legal doctrine, founded upon the eponymous U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1984.  Continues Stargard:

Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), related corporations were generally perceived as separate entities capable of concerted activity, a view which came to be known as the “intra-enterprise conspiracy” doctrine.  Since Copperweld, this doctrine is no longer valid law.  Today, antitrust courts recognize the inherent unity of economic interest and purpose characterizing the relationship between a corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary entities or business units, thus precludes any finding of illegal conspiracy between a corporation and its subs.

This theory is, evidently, whole-heartedly embraced by the SACC and Minister Patel, whose own short answer to “parliamentary inquiry #1995” from 23 September 2016 was simply: “All firms suspected of collusive conduct constituent firms within a single economic entity, so Act does not apply.”  Not so fast, however, says Mr. Stargard, who admonishes that the “single economic entity” principle must be proven and cannot simply be assumed — substance always wins over form:

Copperweld teaches us to analyze the substance, not the form, of economic arrangements – it is therefore important that the “wholly-owned” character of the fisheries units by Sekunjalo not merely be a sham corporate construct to hide the truly competitively separate and distinct character of the entities; rather, it must be true ownership and control by the parent entity.  This is particularly important here, where the parent is apparently a highly diversified PE-type entity.

At issue in the present SA case was Sekunjalo Investments Limited, Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium, Premier Fishing SA (Pty) Ltd, and Premier Fishing Consortium.  They were alleged to have entered into an agreement to collude by discussing and coordinating the preparation of their respective bids to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries  in respect of a tender to supply marine patrol services to DAFF.  In light of their nature as a single economic entity, no further investigation or enforcement is recommended.

 

Kipiani and Tchapga: advancing competition law & economics in Cameroon

Posted on by Editor

Competition Law conference provides most in-depth look at the state of Cameroonian antitrust law

Event organised by Dr. Patricia Kipiani and Prof. Tchapga of Primerio & CEMAC, the Cameroon school of business and its competition law section

What follows is an article that appeared in French in the Le Droit journal, written by Stéphane Ngoh, reprinted here with permission.  An English translation is below.  An interview with Dr. Kipiani related to the conference can be found here.  In it, she discusses the planned creation of a “Competition Observatory” for the country.

Le cabinet Primerio International a organisé un séminaire de sensibilisation aux enjeux du droit et de la politique de la concurrence au Cameroun et dans l’espace de la CEMAC. L’évènement lancé par le ministre du Commerce, M. Luc Magloire Mbarga Atangana s’est déroulé le 7 juillet 2016 au siège du GICAM à Douala.

Présenter la concurrence comme « un bien commun » à la collectivité et « renforcer la pédagogie de la concurrence dans ses dimensions juridiques et politiques» tels peuvent être les maitres mots du premier « rendez-vous de la concurrence» au Cameroun et en CEMAC impulsé par le cabinet d’expertise Primerio International et placé sous le thème «Du droit et de la politique de la concurrence au Cameroun et dans l’espace CEMAC ».  Comme pour en souligner toute l’importance, le ministre du Commerce du Cameroun, Luc Magloire Mbarga Atangana, a fait le déplacement de la capitale économique dans l’optique d’en présider le lancement officiel. Le Docteur en droit et avocate au barreau de Bruxelles, Mme Patricia Kipiani, qui représentait le cabinet Primerio International pour l’occasion a expliqué combien cette première édition des « rendez-vous de la concurrence », se voulait sérieuse. Toute chose ayant justifié l’association aussi bien des universitaires de tous bords, du groupement inter-patronal du Cameroun (Gicam) que des autorités publiques camerounaises. Les Chercheurs de l’Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne en France et les spécialistes du droit de la concurrence, le Professeur des universités Martine Behar-Touchais et l’enseignant-chercheur Laurent Vidal ont fait le déplacement du Gicam.

1425573796Le ministre du Commerce, qui intervient comme l’autorité publique de tutelle du secteur de la concurrence, a tenu à préciser que les rendez-vous de la concurrence ne pouvaient mieux tomber dans un contexte communautaire et camerounais situé à « la veille de l’entrée en vigueur des Accords de partenariat économique « APE », entre les pays ACP et l’UE dont le Cameroun est partie », ces accords qui impliquent une ouverture de l’économie imposent donc qu’un certain accent soit mis sur le droit et la politique de la concurrence. Au demeurant, le représentant de l’Etat du Cameroun à ce rendez-vous a tenu à réaffirmer la place reservée jusqu’ici à la concurrence, « notre conviction, a –t-il expliqué, est que le commerce a besoin d’un environnement sain et c’est la raison pour laquelle un arsenal des textes législatives ou règlementaires existe au Cameroun et cela témoigne de la volonté de l’état de réguler le secteur ». A l’appui de son affirmation, M. Luc Magloire Mbarga Atangana a soutenu que la volonté et la détermination du Cameroun à faire du droit de la concurrence un enjeu de poids, se traduit depuis des années. Pour s’en féliciter, il souligne que les premières velléités d’encadrement de la concurrence remontent aux années1990 et qu’autant les lois ont créé la Commission nationale de la concurrence (Cnc) autant des décrets  en ont fixés les contours organisationnels et structurels. Le président de ladite Commission Léopold Boumsong, qui était dans la suite du Mincommerce, a été appelé à présenter les aspects nationaux de la concurrence et précisément le rôle de la Commission nationale de la concurrence. Ce rôle, comme l’a martelé le ministre, doit s’attacher à « poursuivre et sanctionner les pratiques anticoncurrentielles, en s’appuyant sur des textes datant et nouveau à l’instar de la loi cadre protection sur la consommation, de la nouvelle loi portant organisation des activités commerciales ainsi que la loi sur commerce extérieur ».

TROIS GRANDES PRATIQUES ANTICONCURRENTIELLES

cameroonLe président de la Cnc a précisé à l’égard des chefs d’entreprises qui emplissaient la salle du Gicam qu’il existe sommairement 3 types de pratiques qui ont « pour effet d’empêcher, de fausser ou de restreindre de manière sensible, l’exercice de la concurrence au niveau du marché intérieur » au sens de la loi n°98/013 du 14 juillet 1998 relative à la concurrence. Il s’agit des abus d’une entreprise ou d’un groupe d’entreprises en position dominante sur le marché, des fusions et acquisitions d’entreprises et aussi des accords anticoncurrentiels. L’un dans l’autre, il est apparu que les pratiques anticoncurrentielles au Cameroun sont constatées par procès-verbal dressé par les membres de la Commission suite aux enquêtes consécutives à une plainte d’une personne physique ou morale ou à celles initiées par eux-mêmes.

Par la suite, les aspects multilatéraux de la concurrence ont été évoqués au travers de la présentation du rôle de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Commerce et le Développement (CNUCED) en matière l’accompagnement des politiques de concurrence. L’économiste de la CNUCED, Yves Kenfack a découvert le code CNUCED de la concurrence dont il a salué la pertinence tout en regrettant que celui-ci ne soit pas contraignant pour les Etats signataires.

Un autre moment des échanges a porté sur les aspects croisés entre le point de vue de l’économiste et celui du juriste quant à la concurrence. C’est M. Flavien Tchapga, économiste, consultant lui aussi à Primerio International et professeur associé à l’Université Senghor d’Alexandrie, qui s’y est attelé face à l’auditoire de la salle des conférences du Gicam. L’intervention de ce dernier peut se ramener à une suggestion forte faisant suite à l’interrogation suivante : « peut-on réussir la sensibilisation sur la concurrence si l’on ne tient pas compte des spécificités de l’environnement local ? ». Réponse, en effet, dans un contexte où 9 entreprises sur 10 sont individuelles, il faut se méfier des formules des juristes qui sont souvent larges et complexifiées pour les économistes plus proches du terrain.

Au cours du rendez-vous de la concurrence, une table-ronde a été ouverte pour asseoir la dimension didactique de la rencontre. Les débats et les questions étaient placés sous la houlette de M. Martin Abega, administrateur de sociétés, ancien membre de la Commission nationale de la concurrence et Consul honoraire du Royaume des Pays-Bas au Cameroun.

En dernière analyse, les expériences pratiques de règlementations et de politiques de la concurrence en Europe et au Cameroun ont clairement été croisées par le biais de Martine Behar-Touchais et Laurent Vidal d’une part et de Me Abdoul Bagui d’autre part. Etant entendu qu’au Cameroun, la régulation est émiettée par secteur d’activités.

Ce sont concrètement toutes les difficultés liées au libre exercice de la concurrence qui ont été passées au crible. La contrebande, la persistance des monopoles dans certains domaines ou encore la contrefaçon relèvent de ces écueils épluchés par les soins des experts internationaux et locaux à l’instar des représentants du CNUCED, de CEMAC, de l’OHADA et surtout des entreprises camerounaises. Le Dr. Patricia Kipiani a expliqué qu’il était important que « les réflexions et les échanges reviennent sur les difficultés auxquelles se heurtent les entreprises, sur les difficultés liées à la concurrence déloyale, à leur impact sur le secteur informel et autres activités informelles des entreprises formelles. Et aussi qu’ un accent soit mis sur la réglementation et sur les politiques économiques susceptibles de promouvoir notre espace économique ».

Stéphane Ngoh

For our English readers, below is a Google Translate version in English of the article:

The international  firm Primerio organized an awareness seminar on issues of law and competition policy in Cameroon and in the CEMAC zone. The event launched by the Minister of Trade, Luc Magloire Mbarga Atangana Mr. took place July 7, 2016 at the headquarters of GICAM in Douala.

Introduce competition as a “common good” to the community and “strengthen the teaching of competition in its legal and political dimensions” — such are the watchwords of the first “meeting competition” in Cameroon and driven CEMAC by the consultancy firm Primerio International and under the theme “from the law and competition policy in Cameroon and in the CEMAC.” As if to emphasize the importance, the trade minister of Cameroon, Luc Magloire Atangana Mbarga, made the trip from the economic capital with a view to chair the official launch. The Doctor of Law and lawyer at the Brussels Bar, Patricia Kipiani, who represented the firm Primerio International for the occasion explained how this first edition of “appointments of competition”, was meant seriously. Anything that justified the association both academics of all stripes, the inter-group employers of Cameroon (Gicam) that the Cameroonian public authorities. The researchers from the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne in France and specialists from the competition law, the University Professor Martine Behar-Touchais and Laurent Vidal teacher-researcher made the trip from Gicam.

Minister of Commerce, which acts as a public authority supervising the sector to competition, has insisted that the appointment of the competition could not get better in a community and Cameroonian context located “on the eve of the entry into force of the economic partnership agreements ‘EPAs’, between the ACP countries and the EU which Cameroon is a party “, these agreements which involve opening up the economy therefore require that a certain emphasis on law and the competition policy. Moreover, the representative of the State of Cameroon to this appointment held to reaffirm the place reserved far in the competition, “our conviction has -t he explained, is that the trade needs a healthy environment and that is why an arsenal of legislative and regulatory texts exist in Cameroon and it demonstrates the willingness of the state to regulate the sector. “ In support of its contention, Luc Magloire Atangana Mbarga argued that the will and determination of Cameroon to the competition law of a weight issue, resulting in years. To be welcomed, he stressed that the first framework for competition ambitions date back to the 1990’s and that so many laws created the National Competition Commission (CNC) as decrees have laid the organizational and structural contours. The president said Leopold Commission Boumsong, who was later in the MINCOMMERCE, was called to present the national aspects of competition and specifically the role of the National Competition Commission. This role, as insisted the minister, must strive to “prosecute and punish anti-competitive practices, based on texts dating and new like the law under protection on consumption, the new law on the organization of business and the foreign trade Act. “

THREE MAJOR ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

The president of the CNC said against business leaders who filled the room Gicam there summarily 3 types of practices which have “the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting significantly, the year of competition in the internal market “under law No. 98/013 of 14 July 1998 on competition. This is abuse of a company or group of companies in a dominant market position, mergers and acquisitions as well as anti-competitive agreements. One the other, it appeared that anti-competitive practices in Cameroon are recorded in minutes drawn up by the Commission of the members following the investigations following a complaint from a natural or legal person or those initiated by them -Same.

Thereafter, the multilateral aspects of competition were discussed through the presentation of the role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in support for competition policy. The economist of UNCTAD, Yves Kenfack discovered the UNCTAD code of competition which he praised the relevance while regretting that it was not binding on the signatory states.

Another moment of trade covered the Crusaders aspects between the views of the economist and that of the lawyer about the competition. It was Mr. Flavien Tchapga, economist, consultant also to Primerio International and associate professor at the Senghor University of Alexandria, which it is harnessed facing the audience of the Gicam conference room. The intervention of the latter can be reduced to a strong suggestion in response to the following question: “can we succeed awareness on competition if it does not take into account the specificities of the local environment? “. Response, in fact, in a context where 9 out of 10 companies are individual, beware formulas lawyers who are often larger and more complex to the nearest economists ground.

During the appointment of the competition, a panel discussion was opened to establish the educational dimension of the encounter. The debates and issues were under the leadership of Mr. Martin Abega, corporate director, former member of the National Competition Commission and Honorary Consul of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Cameroon.

Ultimately, the practical experiences of regulations and competition policies in Europe and Cameroon have clearly been crossed through Martine Behar-Touchais and Laurent Vidal one hand and Mr. Abdul Bagui other. It being understood that in Cameroon, regulation is broken by sector.

These are all practical difficulties related to the free exercise of competition that were screened. Smuggling, the persistence of monopolies in certain areas or counterfeiting within these pitfalls peeled for the service of international and local experts like the representatives of UNCTAD, CEMAC, OHADA and especially Cameroonian companies. Dr. Patricia Kipiani said it was important that “the reflections and exchanges back on the difficulties firms face, the difficulties related to unfair competition, their impact on the informal sector and other informal activities formal businesses. And also that an emphasis on regulation and economic policies that promote our economic space. “

Administrative Penalties & Behavioural Remedies – Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Posted on by Editor

By AAT Senior Contributor, Michael-James Currie.

In the wake of the dust settling around the recent settlement agreement reached between ArcelorMittal (AMSA) and the South African Competition Commission (SACC), it may be an opportune time to consider the appropriateness of behavioural penalties levied in respect of firms engaging in cartel conduct or abuse of dominance practices.

AAT Header squareIn terms of the AMSA settlement agreement, AMSA admitted to contravening the cartel provisions contained in the Competition Act and agreed to pay a R1.5 billion (in instalments of no less than R300 million per annum for five years) administrative penalty. In addition to the administrative penalty, AMSA also agreed to invest approximately R4,6 Million into the South African economy for the next 5 years (provided the prevailing economic conditions render such investment feasible) by way of CAPEX obligations.

Furthermore, a pricing remedy was imposed on AMSA in terms of which AMSA undertook not to generate earnings before interest and tax of more than 10% for the next five years (which could be amended on good cause shown, but was capped, in any event, at 15%).

The nature of the settlement terms as agreed to by AMSA is not, however, a novel feature in settlements before the South African Competition Authorities. In 2010, the Competition Commission settled its investigation in relation to Pioneer Foods’ activities in the maize and wheat milling, baking, poultry and eggs industries (the settlement came after the Competition Tribunal had already imposed a R197 million administrative penalty against Pioneer in respect of its participation in a bread cartel).

In terms of the settlement agreement, Pioneer undertook to:

  • pay R250 million as an administrative penalty to National Revenue Fund;
  • pay R250 million to create an Agro-processing Competitiveness Fund to be administered by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC);
  • increase its capital expenditure by R150 million over and above its currently approved capital expenditure (capex) budget; and
  • cooperate with the Competition Commission in the ongoing investigations and prosecutions of the cases that are the subject of this settlement; and stopping anti-competitive conduct and implementing a competition compliance programme.

Furthermore, and more recently, the consent agreement with edible fats producer Sime Darby Hudson Knight (“Sime Darby”), is a further example of a consent order which included financial undertakings in addition to paying an administrative penalty.

In terms of this consent agreement, Sime Darby undertook to invest and establish a warehouse for the distribution of its products into territories which it had previously not distributed its products into, due to the market allocation agreement which formed the basis of the complaint. Sime Darby also committed to contributing to funding the entry of a BEE distributor.

What is evident from the above three examples is that over and above the administrative penalty which may be imposed on a respondent, the financial impact of the additional behavioural and public interest related conditions may substantially exceed the administrative penalty itself.

It is, therefore, an important factor for respondents who find themselves in settlement negotiations with the Competition Commission to consider alternative terms of settling a matter as opposed to merely focussing on the administrative penalty itself.

From an agency’s perspective, the costs associated with behavioural conditions must be carefully weighed up as they also tend to require ongoing, and occasionally extensive oversight by the authorities. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that behavioural remedies are not abused, both by the authorities and by respondents.

south_africaWhile settlement negotiations are inherently flexible, it is important that agencies ensure an objective and a transparent methodology in the manner in which they approach the quantification of a settlement agreement. This has certainty been strived for by the Competition Commission when it elected to publish Guidelines on the Determination of the Calculation of Administrative Penalties (Guidelines). The objectives of the Guidelines, may however, be undermined in light of the broader behavioural and public interest related conditions imposed in recent cases.

A clear and objective point of departure would be favourable for both the agency itself and the relevant respondent in being able to conclude settlement negotiation expeditiously.

A further important consideration, which is particularly highlighted in the AMSA settlement agreement, is whether the remedies provide for an adequate deterrent factor and/or address the relevant harm.

Importantly, in the AMSA matter, AMSA’s R4.6 million CAPEX expenditure investment was as a result of a complaint into alleged abuse of dominance. In terms of the settlement agreement, AMSA did not admit liability for having engaged in abuse of dominance practices.

In light of the fact that the Competition Commission generally requires an admission of liability before concluding a consent order, it is not clear to us, at this stage, why the Commission elected not to demand an admission of liability in relation to the abuse of dominance complaint.

It may be that the Commission did not wish to spend the significant resources in prosecuting an abuse of dominance case, or that the Commission took the view that any abuse of dominance finding would likely only be in respect of the general prohibition against exclusionary conduct, as per Section 8(c) of the Competition Act, which carries no administrative liability for a first time offence.

Accordingly, it may have been a strategic weighing up of the ‘costs versus likely penalty’ which shaped the Commission’s strategic decision.

Whether or not such a strategic decision is justified is not a particular focus of this article. What we do wish to highlight, however, is that absent an admission of liability, a third party who seeks to pursue follow-on damages will be precluded from bringing a civil damages claim against AMSA. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Premier Foods matter in 2015.

The Media 24 Case

Shifting our train of thought to another issue, although not unrelated, is the question as to what exactly constitutes an administrative penalty?

The question was raised, although ultimately not decided by the Competition Tribunal in the recent Media 24 predatory pricing case.

After having been found guilty by the Competition Tribunal, in 2015, for contravening section 8(c) of the Competition Act (for engaging in ‘predatory pricing’), a separate hearing was held to determine the appropriate sanction. As mentioned above, an administrative penalty is not permissible for a first time offence of section 8(c) of the Act.

At the hearing the Competition Commission had proposed, as one of its remedies that Media 24 undertake to establish a R10 million development fund to fund a new entrant into the market.

Media 24 objected to the proposed remedy and raised the argument that the remedy proposed by the Commission would effectively be an administrative penalty, which is not a permissible sanction in terms of the Competition Act.

The Competition Tribunal elected to evaluate the remedy from a practical perspective, finding that the proposed remedy would not be suitable or effective, but deliberately kept open the legal question as to whether or not a remedy which requires any financial commitment from the respondent would effectively amount to an administrative penalty.

The question is rather vexing and may require clarification in due course.

Assuming that the proposed remedy in the Media 24 case would indeed amount to an administrative penalty, the question would naturally arise whether a CAPEX undertaking, as was the case in the AMSA matter discussed above, would also be considered a form of an administrative penalty. If so, then due consideration should be had as to whether the aggregation of the ‘stated administrative penalty’ (i.e. the R1.5 billion in AMSA’s case) together with the behavioural remedies imposed in AMSA (a minimum of R4.6 billion), should be calculated for purposes of determining whether the statutory cap of 10% of a firm’s turnover has been exceeded.

Alternatively, if the Competition tribunal ultimately decides that the proposed remedy in Media 24 is not an administrative penalty as contemplated in terms of the Competition Act, then effectively, we may see an entire new paradigm in the manner in which firms are sanctioned for contravening the Competition Act. For instance, those provisions of the Competition Act which do not cater for an administrative penalty for a first time offence (i.e., certain vertical, horizontal and abuse of dominance practices), may in any event result in respondents paying substantial ‘penalties’ for contravening these provisions.

Furthermore, respondents may not be afforded the protection which the statutory cap places on administrative penalties. As noted above, a firm may be subjected to an administrative penalty which does not exceed 10% of its annual turnover, but the net effect of the respondent’s financial liability may indeed exceed the cap.

While we do not pronounce our views on this issue, suffice it to say that firms engaging with the Competition Authorities with a view of concluding a settlement agreement are entering into a ‘new world’ and there are a number of options, avenues and risks associated in ultimately negotiating a settlement.

Accordingly, the issues raised above may be particularly useful in the manner in which firms embark on their settlement strategies.

 

 

CCC Begins Conduct Enforcement & Activates Its Exemption Regime for Potentially Anti-Competitive Agreements

Posted on by Editor

Parties Start Discussing Business Practices with COMESA’s CCC

As AAT reported recently — see “Growing Pains: From One-Trick Pony to Full-Fledged Enforcer?” — the COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) has begun to move from being a pure merger-control administrator to becoming a full-fledged antitrust enforcer.  The CCC issued a Notice calling on firms to notify the CCC of any agreements (both historic and forward-looking) that may be anti-competitive, for the purpose of having such agreements ‘authorised’ or ‘exempted’ under Article 20 of the COMESA Competition Regulations.  (More details on that regime are in our June article, referenced above.)

Eveready products (sample)
Eveready products (sample)

AAT has now learned that several companies have taken the agency up on its Exemption proposal: Andreas Stargard, a competition practitioner with Primerio Ltd. observes that the CCC’s announced “leniency ‘window’ to incentivise firms to come forward and obtain an exemption” has closed at this point in time, although he expressed doubt that the relatively short one-month period was sufficient and will likely be extended.  Says Stargard: “We are seeing several parties, both global & local companies, who are beginning to take the CCC’s non-merger enforcement seriously.  These undertakings are considering to obtain advance clearance of their business practices under the Commission’s Notice procedure.”  One such example, he adds, is Kenya’s financially embattled Eveready East Africa: it has reportedly sought CCC approval of its agreements with international manufacturers for the importation and distribution within the COMESA common market of their diverse products, ranging from batteries to fountain pens to CloroCOMESA old flag colorx-brand chemicals.  The Commission has invited “general public and stakeholders” for comments according to its formal statement.

In light of these developments, Stargard advises that:
“multi-national firms operating within COMESA or jointly with a COMESA-based importer or other domestic business partner should consider engaging counsel to evaluate their practices, and if they may fall within Article 16 of the Regulations, consider approaching the CCC for an authorisation letter.”

 

COMESA sees slight uptick in merger notifications

Posted on by Editor

Merger filings still dither, but YTD numbers now tentatively promise to exceed FY2015

Making sense of the COMESA Competition Commission’s merger notification site is no  easy undertaking.  The perplexing nature of its case-numbering system mirrors perhaps only the level of confusion surrounding the CCC’s original merger threshold and notification-fee guidelines (e.g., see here on that topic).

As we pointed out here, the merger statistics (as they had been released as of January 2016) for 2015 were disappointingly low.  In today’s post, please note that we are upgrading those numbers, however, to reflect additional material now made available on the official CCC web resource, reflecting 3 additional filings, bringing the year-end total for FY2015 to 18.  Three of those were “Phase 2” cases.  In addition, according to the CCC, there were 3 supplemental cases in which “Comfort Letters” were issued to the parties.

For year-to-date 2016 statistics, the numbers look analogous, albeit somewhat higher than the 2015 slump — that is to say, still diminished from the 2013-2014 height of COMESA ‘mergermania’, during which (mostly international) counsel took the confusion surrounding the CCC notification thresholds to heart and erred on the side of caution (and more fees), advising clients to notify rather than not to (65 in the 2 years), or to seek Comfort Letters, which also were issued in record numbers (19 total for the 2-year period)…   With that said, the agency is now up to 16 merger cases, with 2 Second-Phase matters on deck.

AAT 2016 September mergermania statistics
Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices (using educated inferences where the original CCC case numbers, dates and/or descriptions lack intelligibility; note that 2013-14 statistics only reflect actual filings made available online and not the official statistics issued by the CCC of 21 and 43, respectively)                                                                         (c) AfricanAntitrust.com

“The WRAP” — our monthly summary of antitrust developments across the continent

Posted on by Editor

AAT Header square

Competition-Law Developments: a WRAP from the Comp-Corner

Issue 2 – August 2016

The editors and authors at AAT welcome you to the second edition of “The WRAP.”

We look at the most recent developments and updates in respect of competition law and enforcement which has taken place across the African continent in recent months.

As always, thank you for reading the WRAP, and remember to visit us at AAT for up-to-date competition-law news from the African continent.

         –Ed. (we wish to thank our contributors, especially Michael James Currie, for their support)