cartels, collusion, COMESA, Kenya

Single Brush Stroke Stops Paints Cartel in its Tracks

Three years after an intricate East-African antitrust saga involving global European and Asian paint manufacturers, the industry is in the region’s competition-law news again.

Upon receiving allegations of cartel-like practices between paint makers and undisclosed distributors in 2018, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) launched an investigation into the suspected companies. The investigations later uncovered that four firms, namely: Crown Paints, Basco Products Limited, Kansai Plascon and Galaxy Paints (Companies) were guilty of collusion and price fixing which subjected the purchaser to unreasonably high prices for various paint brands. The CAK has since revealed this to Parliament and handed down its finding on the alleged ant-competitive behavior.

Crown Paints has a flagship brand called DuraCoat, which includes paint products for both interior and exterior finishing (painting and waterproofing). Dura Brands’ exposed collusion with the other three companies sparked fears that consumers have been buying these products at largely inflated prices. This is particularly significant given that Crown Paints is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange and is a heavyweight in the local paints market, with subsidiaries in Uganda and Tanzania.

Ruth Mosoti, Primerio Ltd.’s Kenyan competition practitioner, notes that the “CAK ultimately found that all four companies were in direct contravention of section 31 of the Competition Act, which addresses restrictive trade practices that prohibit companies from colluding with one another in order to determine product prices, as well as control when and to whom they will offer pricing discounts. CAK alleges that these are all anti-competitive behaviors that are to the detriment of the consumer as well as other, outside competitors.”

The authority making preliminary findings that the parties were involved in anti-competitive agreements on price fixing, discount structure and transport charges.” – Stated by the CAK in its latest report tabled before parliament.

In line with section 36(c) and (d) of the Act, the CAK is entitled to impose financial penalties “to remedy or reverse the infringement or the effects thereof” which may span “up to ten percent of the immediately preceding year’s gross annual turnover in Kenya of the undertaking or undertakings in question”.

Of the four Companies, Basco Products Limited was the only company that did not challenge the CAK’s preliminary ruling and paid the penalty amount of Sh20.799 million for the infringement. The company further agreed to abstain from committing any similar breach in the future. While the other companies initially appealed the decision handed down by the CAK, AAT staff have now learned that up to 3 of the accused firms have opted to settle, having withdrawn their appeals.

COMESA

It is also pivotal to note that on the 25th of February 2021, the COMESA Competition Commission (Commission) issued a cautionary note specifically pertaining to the consequences of forming barriers to trade.

The Commission made reference to Article 16 of the Regulations which prohibits “all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which: (a) may affect trade between Member States; and (b) have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market”.

The abovementioned contravention is evident in the case at hand, with the Commission going on to state that it “…will work closely with the national competition authorities in the Member States to ensure that offenders are detected, investigated and punished”. Furthermore, there is particular focus on “hard enforcement through screening, detection, investigation and punishment of offenders”.

The detrimental consequences arising from the conduct of these firms is not only prejudicial towards the customer due to the fact that price-fixing also excludes rival organizations that do not agree to the collusive setting of prices from competing in the same market. Therefore, the steps taken by the CAK and COMESA are paving the way to a healthy and competitive marketplace.

Standard
AAT exclusive, AfCFTA, COMESA, EAC, East Africa, ECOWAS, fraud/corruption, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Telecoms

Common Markets & the Race for Power in Africa: a Podcast Interview

Africa is a continent of 1.2 billion people.  From a consumer potential standpoint it matches China or India.  Yet historically, it has suffered from the lingering shadows of its colonial past, in addition to its current fractures, hostility, and ever-present corruption.

The continent is emerging fast, however, and is quickly accelerating into the 21st Century marketplace both from an investment and growth opportunity. From the digital revolution and increased free trade, to innovation in various industries, Africa may be the next market frontier to unfold into accelerated multinational presence.

In this podcast episode (available gratis on Apple, Spotify, and Sheppard Mullin‘s web site), Michael P.A. Cohen is joined by Africa competition and markets expert, Andreas Stargard, as he shares his insight to help multinationals navigate the African landscape.

What we discuss in this Podcast episode:

  • What do the Africa markets look like from a multinational business opportunity perspective?
  • Which countries in Africa have established markets? Which ones have growth potential?
  • How and why has China’s investment and influence across Africa intensified over the last couple of decades?
  • What type of digital revolution is taking place in Africa?
  • Is there a huge opportunity for mobile money on the continent?
  • How is free trade shaping up across the African continent? How do the AfCFTA’s goals tie in?
  • What Free Trade cooperation agreements exist among the East, West and South African nations? Will they succeed?
  • Where is Africa leading innovations?
  • How will African wars and corruption impact its ability to grow a multinational marketplace?

Who’s speaking:

Michael Cohen is the creator of the Nota Bene podcast. He began his career as an Assistant Special Prosecutor, investigating and prosecuting organized crime involvement with the failure of local financial institutions in the early 1990s, and has since practiced globally at several top law firms. In 2015, Michael joined Sheppard Mullin’s storied antitrust practice with a goal of putting his 25 years experience to work to complement the firm’s longstanding antitrust litigation group, helping to bridge government antitrust enforcement in Washington, D.C. to the firm’s strengths in Brussels, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

A co-founding senior member of Primerio, a business advisory firm helping companies do business within Africa from a global perspective, Andreas Stargard is legal, strategic, and business advisor to companies and individuals across the globe.  He focuses on antitrust and competition advice, white-collar counseling, contract dispute and negotiation, and resolution of global business disputes, including cartel work, corruption allegations and internal investigations, intellectual property, and distribution matters.  He has written and spoken extensively on these topics and many others.  Andreas also advises clients on corporate compliance programmes that conform to local as well as global government standards, and has handled key strategic merger-notification questions, including evaluation of filing requirements, avoidance strategies, cross-jurisdictional cooperation, and the like.

Standard
AAT exclusive, COMESA, COVID-19, East Africa, exemptions, Kenya, public-interest

Antitrust enforcer to allow self-assessment of competitor collaborations amidst pandemic

Following the (thus far rarely used) “Block Exemption” procedure under Section 30 (2) of the Kenyan Competition Act, the Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) has proposed a new set of draft Guidelines as to competitor collaborations during the COVID-19 pandemic, so as to assist with the country’s economic recovery efforts. It specifies five (5) focus sectors, namely Manufacturing, Private Healthcare, Aviation, Travel & Hospitality, and Health Research. The Guidelines are ostensibly inapplicable to firms that engage in economic activity outside these five sectors.

In issuing its soon-to-be finalized guidance, the CAK wishes to provide “direction to undertakings in making a self-assessment as to whether the agreements, decisions or practices which they intend entering into will qualify for block exemption within the Covid-19 Economic Recovery Context without the need to seek the Authority’s intervention.” (A.(4))

A key aspect, in the view of antitrust litigator Andreas Stargard, is the renewed attention given to “public-interest factors” in competition law.

He believes that this concession to non-traditional competition-law theory is “necessitated by the broad economic havoc COVID-19 has wrought, including on historically peripheral-to-antitrust aspects such as overall employment, public health, en masse business closures, and the like, which would normally not be highly relevant factors in the strict sense of conducting a rigorous competition-law analysis.”

Stargard continues that “Condition III of the CAK’s so-called ‘Self-Assessment Principles‘ expressly highlights this element, namely forcing firms to evaluate whether their proposed collaboration with competitive entities is ‘in the public interest, such as creation of employment’,” citing para. 11(vii) of the draft Block Exemption Guidelines on Certain Covid-19 Economic Recovery Priority Sectors.

The CAK’s proposal thus strongly echoes what its regional sister authority, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) openly discussed as early as July of last year. As we wrote in our assessment of the official CCC staff’s thoughts on competition enforcement amidst the pandemic in 2020:

The concept of non-competition factors (i.e., the public-interest element) was also raised, as there is a “growing debate on whether the pandemic may necessitate changes in [the] substantive assessment of mergers, e.g., towards more lenient consideration of failing firms.”

As Andreas Stargard observes, “just as COVID-19 is truly global, Kenya and COMESA are likewise not alone in their quest to master the difficult balancing act between sufficiently enforcing their domestic or regional antitrust laws versus allowing reasonable accommodations to be made for necessary competitor collaborations in light of the pandemic’s impact. Indeed, other enforcers have also made accommodations for such unusual collaborative efforts, given the emergency nature of the pandemic.”

In the U.S., the federal antitrust agencies have issued analogous guidance for competitors, issuing a joint guidance document specifically on health-care providers collaborating on necessary public-health initiatives. What stands out is the agencies’ express invitation for health-care players to take advantage of the (now-expedited to 7 days’ turnaround time) business-review/opinion-letter procedures.   Mr. Stargard notes however that, unlike the Kenyan proposal of “self-assessment by the affected entities, the American approach still necessitates an affirmative approach of the enforcers by the parties, seeking official sanctioning of their proposed cooperation by submitting a detailed explanation of the planned conduct, together with its rationale and expected likely effects.

By way of further example, in Canada, as the OECD notes, the government “has developed a ‘whole-of-government action’ based on seven guiding principles including collaboration. This principle calls on all levels of government and stakeholders to work in partnership to generate an effective and coherent response. These principles build on lessons learned from past events, particularly the 2003 SARS outbreak, which led to dedicated legislation, plans, infrastructure, and resources to help ensure that the country would be well prepared to detect and respond to a future pandemic outbreak.”

Standard
AAT exclusive, cartels, collusion, East Africa, Kenya, leniency, leniency / amnesty, Price fixing, Whistleblower reward

New Antitrust Whistleblower Reward Scheme: Are ‘Paltry’ Rewards & Anonymity Enough?

As of January 1st, 2021, Kenya’s competition-law enforcer, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), started benefitting from its new “Informant Reward Scheme” (IRS). The IRS encourages “confidential informants” — often also referred to as “whistleblowers” — privy to inside information about antitrust offenses to come forward and report the illicit conduct to the Authority.

The IRS incentivizes informants with promises of anonymity as well as — rather modest, as we will see — monetary rewards: the CAK vows to maintain the confidentiality of the informant’s identity, and provides for up to Sh1,000,000 (approximately US$9,100 at today’s Fx rate).

Andreas Stargard, a competition lawyer active on the African continent, has delved more deeply into the CAK’s enabling “Guidelines” document, trying to ascertain the precise contours of the IRS program. He reports as follows:

AfricanAntitrust.com: “Who is eligible to participate in the IRS?”

Andreas Stargard: “What we know from the implementing Guidelines, and also from Director General Kariuki‘s speech on the IRS, is that only third parties or those individuals playing merely a remote and peripheral role in relation to the anti-competitive conduct are eligible to benefit from the IRS. This means that a 3rd-party customer, or a non-executive employee such as a secretary or copy clerk of the offending company, may report wrongdoing under the IRS.”

AAT: “What about insiders with executive authority, then?”

Stargard: “Similar to Western countries’ antitrust regimes, those individuals can still report illicit conduct by their employers, but they would have to resort to the Kenyan leniency process as opposed to the Informant Reward Scheme.”

AAT: “Understood. Are there other, similar whistleblower schemes in existence?”

Stargard: “Yes. We recently held a very timely webinar with leading international and African experts on the topic of whistleblowing, which I moderated. A recording of it is available on the web. Whistleblowing has become an important piece of the enforcement puzzle for many governmental authorities around the globe, not only on competition issues. In Kenya, specifically, President Kenyatta recently doubled the rewards for tax-fraud whistleblowers, who are now entitled to receive up to Sh5,000,000 ($45,000), and the country’s revenue service implemented the so-called iWhistle portal to allow informants to report tax fraud anonymously.”

AAT: “Speaking of money, what is your take on the amount of the offered reward under the terms of the IRS?”

Stargard: “Frankly speaking, one million Kenyan shillings is a paltry sum. I cannot comprehend how reporting a competition-law violation such as a price-fixing cartel that may cost the Kenyan economy and its consumers billions in losses is deserving of 5-times less reward than an informant reporting an individual’s tax fraud to the revenue service, which may cause significantly less injury to the government purse than an international cartel of corporates…”

AAT: “Strong words.”

Stargard: “I’m serious. Compare and contrast the meager sum of not even US$10,000 maximum IRS reward with the potential 5-year prison sentence liability for executives convicted of collusion! There is simply no comparison…”

AAT: “In a perfect world, what would you change about the Kenyan whistleblower scheme?”

Stargard: “If I had had any input into the process of devising the IRS Guidelines, I would have ensured that the maximum reward amount be commensurate with the economic harm and financial damage done by cartels — in short, I would raise the IRS reward to an un-capped straight-up percentage portion of the fines recovered by the CAK. The more, the better for everyone.”

AAT: “Do you have any parting words or final observations on the IRS program for our readers?”

Stargard: “Well, for starters, it is not too late to implement changes to the regime. The CAK (and the legislature, to the extent necessary) can easily increase the maximum reward, as I proposed earlier. I am certain that it would yield better results than the current Sh1m cap, which can easily be ‘outbid’ by an already-corrupt employer, seeking to ‘buy’ its employees’ loyalty! So, Mr. Kariuki, if you’re reading this interview, I’d strongly suggest considering an increase in the reward.

Secondly, from our international experience, we know one thing about ‘secret’ informant schemes: One key element of any successful whistleblower regime (besides ensuring adequate rewards) is the strictest maintenance of confidentiality of the informant’s identity. I realize that section ‘F’ of the Guidelines assures the public that anonymity will be guaranteed and that the CAK will ‘take utmost care to ensure that the identity of the confidential informant is not disclosed.’ However, as an attorney, I can only say that the proof is in the pudding. We will have to wait for the first proceedings pursuant to IRS-provided reports, in order to determine whether or not the whistleblowers’ anonymity will indeed be preserved successfully in practice. That said, I look forward to advising clients on the many issues that are likely going to arise from the Scheme!”

AAT: “Thank you for your time and insights on this new development!”

CAK Director General Wang’ombe Kariuki
Standard
ACF, COMESA, commissioners, Kenya

Kariuki gets World Bank advisor post

Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) Director-General Francis Wang’ombe Kariuki, MBS, will serve on the panel and contribute to its annual publication, the “World Development Report” for the upcoming calendar year. An archive of the Bank’s prior Reports is available for review here.

The Kenyan WallStreet publication quotes Kariuki as saying:

“The appointment takes cognizance of the fact that competition law enforcement has a role to play in poverty alleviation and that data is a highly-prized asset among companies, which can be leveraged for [either] development or socioeconomic harm. … Private firms may use data to deter the entry of upcoming firms, thereby limiting or preventing competition to the detriment of the consumers, specifically eroding their purchasing power and choice.”

Kariuki is a former COMESA Competition Commission Board member and a founding member and first chairman of the African Competition Forum.

Standard
Appellate Review, Kenya, mergers, Telecoms

Kenya’s Competition Tribunal: Airtel/Telkom merger generates first decision

By Ruth Mosoti, Esq. (Primerio Ltd. Kenya practice head)

On 4th May 2020, the Kenyan Competition Tribunal made its first decision after considering the application for review of the Airtel-Telkom merger where they contested 7 out of 8 the conditions imposed. The competition Act allows the tribunal to look at the merits of the Competition Authority’s (CAK) decision therefore and has power to confirm, modify or reverse any order issued either partially or wholly. In this particular decision the Tribunal did exercise all these powers.  The decision of the Tribunal was guided by whether CAK’s decision promoted or protected effective competition in the telecommunications sector, enhanced the welfare of the Kenyan people and prevented unfair and misleading conduct throughout Kenya among other things.

First, the Tribunal confirmed the condition set in relation to employment. This public interest consideration varies on a case by case basis hence the difference in its application. In some mergers CAK has limited the retention of employees to 12 months and in others it is limited to 3 years. In this particular case, it was limited to 2 years. The tribunal agreed that due to the specialized nature of the industry and the presence of only two players in that market post-merger, then the condition imposed in regard to employment was justified.

Ruth Mosoti (author)

Secondly, the 2 conditions in relation to spectrum licensing and management were varied in their entirety primarily because it was found that CAK had no basis to interfere with licensing conditions imposed by the Communications Authority. It was their view that the Communications Authority was the competent authority to govern the licensing terms and, in the event, that there are any competition concerns then, these two regulators would consult. The imposition of these two conditions were deemed to be unnecessary. It was emphasized that competition law is there to protect competition and not competitors.

Thirdly, the condition on restricting entering into any sale agreement was modified to bring clarity. As imposed by CAK any form of sale was prohibited which was found to be blanket, therefore unreasonable. The Tribunal clarified that the merged entity would be able to enter into sale agreements in the ordinary course of business however the merged undertaking cannot be sold for a period of 5 years. In addition to this, the condition of audit in case the merged undertaking became a failing firm was done away with because CAK failed to justify why it applied the “failing firm doctrine” post-merger. In any event should this happen, the Tribunal reasoned that this would require approval from CAK therefore an unnecessary condition at this point.

The conditions in relation to contracts managed by Telkom on behalf of the government were retained however the tribunal clarified that this was not to interfere with the freedom of contract between the Kenyan government and the merged entity. While it is unconceivable how the government would agree to preferential terms while entering into these contracts without offending the law (this would be to my understanding that you pay for a government service/product depending on who you are which would be outright discriminatory)

Lastly, imposing a requirement for annual reports to CAK with no time limit was not justified. The appellants asked for 2 years and the Tribunal obliged. This was based on the fact that most of the conditions imposed on the merged entity after the review would lapse after 2 years therefore the tribunal deemed two years to be a justifiable time frame to comply with the 8th condition.

The Tribunal’s take on the procedural issues raised by the appellants is quite interesting. On the issue as to what constituted a “fair administrative process”, it was of the opinion that CAK had accorded the appellants adequate notice and opportunity to respond. To contextualize this, the appellants received a notice of a proposed decision and had a meeting on 25th October 2019, the Appellants contested these conditions and on the same date after the meeting, CAK sent amended conditions. The appellants advocates asked for time to consult their clients on the amended conditions.  The CAK however went ahead to issue a notice of determination on 31st October 2019 which was 6 days later. CAK’s position on this was that the board having sat, the decision issued on 31st October 2019 was final. This being the case, the only avenue available to the Appellants was to challenge it before the tribunal. The position by the tribunal that the Appellants had been given adequate time to challenge procedural fairness bearing in mind that the 30 days were to lapse on 24th November 2019 is baffling at best.

In conclusion, this decision being the first of has accorded practitioners an insight as to how CAK arrive at its decisions as well as the considerations of the tribunal in case of appeals. We now look forward to its determination of the other appeals in relation to RTPs before it.

Standard
AAT, East Africa, Kenya, mergers, Uncategorized

KENYA: AIRTEL//TELKOM KENYA MERGER CONDITIONS TAKEN ON APPEAL

By Ruth Mosoti

In December 2019, the CAK approved the merger between two Kenyan telecom firms, Airtel and Telkom Kenya, subject to a number of wide ranging conditions.

The merging parties, however, were not satisfied with the conditions and have decided to take the CAK’S decision on review to the Competition Tribunal. Kenya’s Competition Tribunal was fully constituted and became operational in May 2019 after four members were appointed to the panel.

In terms of  the Kenyan Competition Act, any party aggrieved by a decision of the CAK in relation to a merger has 30 days to file for a review of that merger before the Tribunal. The 30 days period commences from the date the CAK’s decision is published in the gazette. Accordingly, although the merger was formally approved in October 2019, the merging parties had to wait until December 2019 for the gazette, containing the CAK’s decision, to be published before a notice for review could be filed.

The Tribunal has a broad range of powers and may overturn, amend or confirm the decision of the CAK. The Tribunal may also, if it considers it appropriate to do so, refer the matter back to the CAK for reconsideration of certain issues.

Turning to the conditions themselves, one of the contentious conditions relates to having the spectrum revert back to the government upon expiry of the merging parties’ license.

This is concerning as it is the Communications Authority of Kenya that issues and renews licences. The spectrum allocation by Communication Authority is an asset in the hands of the holder. Assuming that the spectrum is being utilized in accordance with the licence, ordinarily renewal is guaranteed.

The CAK’s decision that the license must revert back to the government is concerning as it seems to overlap with the Communications Authority’s mandate. John Oxenham, a director of Primerio, says that the interplay and conflict between the roles of competition and communications agencies are not unique to Kenya. In South Africa there have also been a number of issues which have raised as to which agency is best suited to assess ‘competition law matters’. A memorandum of understanding between the South African Competition Commission and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) has been concluded in an effort to ensure consistency and enhanced collaboration between the two agencies in this regard.

The CAK’s conditions in this merger seem to be at odds with the CAK’s approach adopted in previous matters. For instance, when Yui exited the Kenyan market, both Airtel and Safaricom acquired Yu’s assets (including licenses). Although Safaricom had a larger chunk of the 2G spectrum, the CAK did not seem to take Safaricom’s market size into account when these assets were acquired. Perhaps the CAK appreciates that there was a missed opportunity.

This is will be the Tribunal’s first opportunity to review the CAK’s decision relating to a  merger and it will be interesting to see how robustly the Tribunal scrutinizes the CAK’s decision with reference to economic evidence. As competition lawyer Michael-James Currie points out, unfortunately, the CAK does not publish detailed reasons which underpin its decisions and it is, therefore, often difficult to fully appreciate the CAK’s reasoning or assess whether the CAK’s decision is sufficiently supported by the underlying evidence. Hopefully the Tribunal’s reasons in this matter will be more comprehensive, thereby contributing positively to creating precedent.

Currie also points out that the CAK imposed a public interest condition relating to a moratorium of any merger specific retrenchments for a two year period. The merging parties are appealing this condition as well and have proposed that the moratorium be reduced to 12 months. The role of public interest factors in merger control has been materially influenced by the South African merger control regime where employment related conditions are a common feature in merger conditions. Moreover, two year moratoriums is usually the ‘benchmark’ standard although moratoriums ranging from 3-5 years have also been imposed on parties in South Africa. It will be interesting to gauge the Tribunal’s approach to public interest factors and whether we will see a unique approach to the assessment of such conditions or whether the Tribunal is likely to follow the South African approach.

[Ruth is a Primerio competition law practitioner based in Nairobi, Kenya.]

 

 

Standard
AAT exclusive, Angola, Botswana, Grocery Retail Market Inquiry, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uncategorized

Key African Antitrust Highlights of 2019 and What to Keep Tabs on for 2020

The level of antitrust enforcement across Africa has increased markedly over the past decade and with more jurisdictions coming on stream and establishing competition law regimes, the role of antitrust laws and the risk of non-compliance is becoming more pronounced than ever before.

Pan-African competition lawyer, Michael-James Currie, says that the role and applicable standards relating to competition law enforcement in developing countries is more divergent from those established in the more developed jurisdictions. A one-size fits all approach to competition law compliance is becoming less feasible – particularly as the role of public interest or non-traditional competition law factors are increasingly being taken into account in competition policy and legislation. Likewise, the thresholds for establishing “dominance” is generally lower across many of the African jurisdictions than those generally utilised in the United States or Europe and firms’ therefore need to be mindful that the traditional assessments of welfare (whether it is total welfare or consumer welfare) is not necessarily the benchmark. The focus of addressing perceived high levels of concentration in the market and opening up the market to smaller players is hallmark of a number of the more developed African agencies – particularly South Africa and Kenya.

Primerio Director, John Oxenham, says that the next decade of competition law enforcement in Africa is likely to be particularly important as the continent moves closer towards establishing the African Continental Free Trade Agreement. The harmonisation between regional bodies and domestic regimes remains an important challenges facing many agencies and this will become all the more relevant as member states negotiate an appropriate competition law framework suitable for the Continent.

Africanantitrust has throughout 2019 provided our readers with updates, opinion pieces and articles capturing the key competition law developments across Africa as they occur and our editors are committed to continuing doing so in 2020.

To start off the year, the editors at AfricanAntitrust provide a snapshot of the key highlights of 2019 as well as some of the most important developments to be expected in 2020 (although there will no doubt be many more).

Nigeria’s new Commission and the recent release of foreign merger control guidelines

In January 2019 the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) was signed into law in Nigeria.

Nigeria did not have a dedicated competition law regime until then. The Act, which is not too dissimilar from the South African Competition Act, will regulate inter alia merger control, cartel conduct, restrictive vertical practices and abuse of dominance.

The Act is not currently being enforced as the Federal Competition and Consumer Commission (the “Commission”) is yet to be formally established although this is expected to take place soon.

In relation to mergers, section 2(3)(d) of the Act empowers the Commission to have regulatory oversight over all indirect transfers/ acquisitions of assets or shares which are located outside of Nigeria, and which results in the change of control of a Nigerian business.

Pursuant to the above-mentioned clause, on 13 November 2019, the Commission published the “Guidelines on the Simplified Process for Foreign to Foreign Mergers with a Nigerian Component”. The Guidelines specifies the type of information which is required in respect of the merging parties, as well as the mandatory supporting documentation which should accompany a filing. Furthermore, the Guidelines assist parties to a foreign to foreign merger by providing explicit rules on how the merger is to be treated, notified as well as the simplified procedure with regards to the merger.

Primerio director, Andreas Stargard notes that the implementation of the Guidelines will be interesting as the Guidelines are the first of its kind in Africa and is largely influenced by the European merger control regime.

The Guidelines also provide information regarding filing fees – although the calculation of filing fees remains somewhat unclear and requires further clarification.

Kenya’s Buyer Power Provisions

In Kenya, the Competition Amendment Act (the Amendment Act) has provided a new provision, Section 24A, which deals with buyer power.

Abusive “buyer power” is now expressly prohibited and any person who engages in such conduct will be considered to have committed an offence. Such an offence carries the penalty of a fine not exceeding 10 million shillings or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. The abuse of buyer power is, therefore, viewed as a serious offence.

The “abuse of buyer power” is defined in Section 24A (2) of the Amendment Act as the influence exercised by a purchaser to gain more favourable terms, or imposing:

long-term opportunity cost 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”.

In determining whether an abuse of buyer power exists, the Authority will take into account;

  • the nature and determination of contract terms between the concerned undertakings;
  • the payment requested for access to infrastructure; and
  • the price paid to suppliers as stated in section 24A (5) of the Amendment Act.

The above mentioned provision will likely have the effect of affording suppliers greater protection, particularly small suppliers who have a weak bargaining power in comparison to powerful and dominant purchasers. It is furthermore important to protect such suppliers as the negative effects of the abuse of buyer power are often transferred to consumers, for example high prices.

Most notably, as Michael-James Currie has previously pointed out when critically assessing the new buyer power provisions, it is not a prerequisite to prove that the respondent is “dominant” before the provisions of section 24A(2) may be applicable. Rather, the provision considers the bargaining power between a particular supplier and customer. This provision may be particularly harmful to consumer welfare if suppliers who negotiate favourable prices with suppliers which are passed on to consumers, are deterred from doing so due to the risks associated with contravening this provision.

Recent amendments in the Botswana competition landscape

The Botswana Competition Amendment Act recently came into force on 2 December 2019, and is expected to transform competition law in Botswana in various respects, particularly in terms of horizontal restrictive practices, abuse of dominance, exemptions and merger penalties.

Oxenham says that the previous Act did not provide for criminal liability in respect of cartel conduct, however, under Section 26 of the Amendment Act this position has changed. In terms of the Amendment Act, any director or employee who is found to have engaged in restrictive horizontal practices is liable to a fine not exceeding P100 000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or to both.

With respect to abuse of dominance, the Act previously did not list particular conduct that was considered to be an abuse of dominance. The Amendment Act provides clarity on the type of conduct that is likely to be considered abusive. The clarification is welcomed and will hopefully ensure greater compliance since undertakings now have the tools to foster a better understanding of what constitutes abuse of dominance and are better placed to ensure that their conduct does not fall foul of the prohibition.

The Amendment Act also caters for exemptions. The terms and conditions of any exemptions will be determined by the Authority who will take both competition law and public interest factors into account when assessing whether to grant an exemption.

In relation to penalties for gun-jumping (i.e. merger implementation prior to approval), the Amendment Act provides much needed clarity. Section 58(3) of the Acts states that implementing a merger without prior approval by the Authority will attract a fine not exceeding 10% of the consideration or the combined turnover of the parties involved in the merger – whichever is greater. Merging parties are, therefore, advised to ensure timeous notification is made in respect of any merger which meets the thresholds for a mandatory filing to seek merger approval in Botswana.

The Amendment Act has also introduced a provision regarding the consideration of a rejected merger.  Parties can apply for reconsideration of a merger within 14 days from the date of rejection. Such a provision provides the parties with an additional opportunity to provide oral evidence which is also a positive development.

Angola’s competition regime coming on stream

The Competition Act in Angola is now fully in force. The Competition Regulatory Authority (the “CRA”) is responsible for prosecuting offences. Conduct which occurred prior to the establishment of the Authority may still be prosecuted in certain circumstances.

The Competition Act prohibits both horizontal and vertical agreements that restrict competition in the Angolan market. Accordingly, undertakings have to be cautious in relation to the types of agreements they enter into as it may result in liability and prosecution by the CRA. The Act does however provide for exemptions from the prohibitions with the exception of abuse of dominance and abuse of economic dependence. Exemptions are only available upon application and the parties must demonstrate that they comply with certain conditions in order to be granted an exemption.

Importantly, Angola’s Competition Act creates a formal merger control regime. Mergers will now be subject to prior notification to the CRA and they have to meet certain specified requirements. The thresholds requiring prior notification are the following:

  • the creation, acquisition or reinforcement of a market share which is equal to or higher than 50% in the domestic market or a substantial part of it; or
  • the parties involved in the concentration exceeded a combined turnover in Angola of 3.5 billion Kwanzas in the preceding financial year; or
  • the creation, acquisition or reinforcement of a market share which is equal to or higher than 30%, but less than 50% in the relevant domestic market or a substantial part of it, if two or more of the undertakings achieved more than 450 million Kwanzas individual turnover in the preceding financial year.

Mergers must not hamper competition and must be consistent with public interest considerations such as:

  • a particular economic sector or region;
  • the relevant employment level;
  • the ability of small or historically disadvantaged enterprises to become competitive; or
  • the capability of the industry in Angola to compete internationally.

The sanctions for non-compliance with the Act’s merger provisions could result in the impositions of fines of 1%-10% of a company’s turnover for the preceding year, as well as other conditions which the Authority deems appropriate. Should a party fail to comply with relevant sanctions or conditions imposed by the Authority or provide with false information, the Authority may levy periodic penalty payments of up to 10% of the merging party’s average turnover daily.

South Africa

  • Amendment Act

In February 2019, the Competition Amendment Act was signed into law and is widely regarded as the most significant amendments to the South African Competition Act in two decades.

The majority of the provisions contained in the Amendment Act have been brought into force. Those amendments – particularly those relating to buyer power, price discrimination and national security approval regarding foreign mergers are expected to be brought into effect in 2020.

Some important aspects of the Amendment Act include:Mergers involving foreign acquiring firms :

The President is to establish a Committee which will be mandated to consider the implementation of mergers which involve a foreign acquiring firm and the potential adverse effect of the merger on the national security interests of the Republic. Essentially this means that a foreign acquiring firm is required to notify both the Competition Commission, as well as file a notice with the Committee. Security interests are broadly defined.

Buyer power

The insertion of Section 8(4)(a) essentially prohibits a dominant firm from requiring or imposing unfair prices or other trading conditions on a supplier that is a small and medium business (“SMEs”) or a firm controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons (“HDPs”). This section also introduces a reverse onus on the dominant firm to prove that its trading terms or conditions are not unfair nor that there has been any attempt to refuse to deal with a supplier in order to circumvent the operation of this clause.

The regulations regarding Buyer Power are currently only applicable to the following sectors:

  • Agro-processing;
  • Grocery retail; and
  • Online intermediation services.

Price discrimination

In determining price discrimination by a dominant firm, the Amendment Act has created two parallel self-standing tests. The Act has retained the traditional test for price discrimination which requires proof of a substantial lessening of competition, but has also prohibited a dominant firm from engaging in price discrimination which impedes the ability of Small or Medium Enterprises (“SMEs”) or firms controlled by historically disadvantaged persons (HDPs) from “participating effectively” in the market. Dominant firms are also not allowed to avoid or refuse selling goods or services to SMEs or firms owned or controlled by HDPs to circumvent the section. Significantly, and unlike the traditional price discrimination provision, Section 9(1)(a)(ii) does not require a complainant to prove any anti-competitive effects or consumer welfare effects.

Penalties

The Amendment Act has removed the “yellow-card” principle and administrative penalties will be imposed for any contravention. Previously, penalties for first-time offences were only applicable to cartel conduct, minimum resale price maintenance and certain abuse of dominance conduct (such as excessive pricing or predation).

Mergers

The role of public interest factors in the merger control assessment has become more prominent by firstly elevating the standard of public interest factors to equal footing with traditional competition law factors (i.e. SLC tests) and also broadening the public interest grounds which must be taken into consideration to specifically include transformation objectives.

  • Important cases

In December 2019, the South African Competition Appeal Court heard the appeal from the Tribunal in relation to the “Banking Forex” Matter.

Oxenham says that this case raises a number of jurisdictional issues in relation to the scope and powers of the South African Competition Authorities to impose penalties on foreign firms for engaging in cartel conduct outside of South Africa. Both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction is being contested.

  • Market Inquiries

In 2019, the Commission fully utilized its powers in Section 43A-G and 23 in initiating and conducting market inquiries as well as its duty to remedy adverse effects on competition. Three market inquiries were conducted in 2019, namely:

  • The Health Market Inquiry;
  • The Grocery Retail Market Inquiry; and
  • The Data Services Market Inquiry

The implementation of the Commission’s recommendations of the abovementioned market inquiries will likely be a controversial topic, and much push-back is expected from parties implicated in the recommendations.

 

Standard
AAT, buyer power, East Africa, Kenya, Uncategorized

KENYA: COMPETITION AMENDMENT BILL INTRODUCES ONEROUS BUYER POWER PROVISIONS

* By Ruth Mosoti

In July 2019, the Competition Amendment Bill was gazetted and looks on course to be adopted by Parliament.

There are several proposed amendments to the current Competition Act although the focus of the Amendments, most notably, relates to the introduction of buyer power provisions which is a self -standing prohibition and does not require a complainant to first establish a dominance on the part of the buyer.

In regard to buyer power, the majority of the substantive provisions in the current  “Buyer Power Guidelines” previously published by the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) have been mirrored in the Act. We summarize below some of the features that the Bill seeks to introduce to the Act in regard to buyer power include:

  1. Introduction of a ‘buyer power code of practice’, developed by the CAK in consultation with stakeholders, relevant government agencies and the Attorney General;
  2. The CAK will have power to impose reporting measures on sectors that experience or are likely to experience abuse of buyer power reporting and prudential requirements, in addition to this, these sectors may be required to develop their own binding code of practice;
  3. The Bill proposes minimum requirements for an agreement between a buyer undertaking and a supplier undertaking. The amendment also provides that this agreement does not have to be in writing;
  4. A new section 29A (which is controversial as it appears to be aimed at the advocates remuneration order) is introduced that targets Professional Associations whose rules offend the provisions of the Competition Act and provides for the persons who will be held responsible for any guidelines that are issued by the association.
  5. It is notable that there are no monetary administrative sanctions introduced by these provisions rather non-compliance attracts criminal sanctions.

The Bill, if passed into law, will positively impact the enforcement of buyer power provisions as the  gap on the substantive provisions on the enforcement of buyer power provisions will be filled.

Michael-James Currie, a pan-Africa competition law practitioner notes that that the Buyer Power principles are similar to those typically found in consumer protection legislation and there are no clear benchmarks (such as a substantial lessening of competition) against which to measure or assess the alleged buyer power. The criteria for determining whether buyer power amounts to an contravention is guided by principles of fairness and reasonableness rather than any economic benchmark. This makes compliance as well as objective decision making all the more difficult. John Oxenham, director at Primerio echoes these sentiments and states that from a traditional competition law perspective, buyer power generally only raises concerns in the event that the buyer concerned is able to exercise a substantial degree of market power.

Currie suggests that absent a clear threshold as to what would trigger an offence in terms of the new buyer power provisions, coupled with the criminal liability (which includes a maximum prison sentence of five years), is particularly onerous on firms seeking to comply with the competition legislation. Currie suggests that it would be preferable to change the liability to an administrative penalty as opposed to a criminal offence so as not to hamper or overly prejudice firms operating in the market.

 

Standard
AAT, East Africa, fines, Kenya, mergers, Uncategorized

Enforcement Update: Kenya Competition Authority imposes administrative penalty for gun-jumping (prior implementation of a merger)

  • update by Michael-James Currie

In September 2019, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) formally penalised two merging parties for having implemented a transaction without having obtaining the requisite prior regulatory approval.

The trigger for mandatory notification in this case was a change from joint control to sole control when Patricia Cheng acquired an additional 50% of the shareholding in Moringa School.

The maximum penalty which may be imposed for prior implementation is 10% of the parties’ combined turnover in Kenya. In this case, the CAK imposed a nominal penalty (approximately USD 5000) in light of the parties having voluntarily notified the CAK of their failure to obtain prior approval, having co-operated with the CAK’s investigatory agency and after having subsequently assessed the transaction, the CAK concluded that the merger was unlikely to have any adverse effects on competition and would have positive public interest benefits.

The public interest benefits included the fact that the school would offer coding technology to over 1000 students and employees over 100 staff members.

In light of the mitigating factors, the CAK found that the penalty was balanced taking into account principles of deterrence and proportionality of the infringement.

The case is noteworthy not only because it signals a clear message from the CAK that the prior implementation of mergers will attract penalties (which are likely to increase substantially as firms ought to have greater awareness of the merger control regime in Kenya) but also confirms that a move from sole to joint control of an entity or, as in this case, a move from joint to sole control, requires mandatory notification to the CAK.

The CAK has one of the most effective merger control regimes in Africa and is increasingly becoming a more robust competition agency from an enforcement perspective.

[Michael-James Currie is a competition lawyer practising across the majority of sub-Saharan African jurisdictions]

Standard