Lessons drawn from the Constitutional Court in the Coca-Cola Appeal
By Brandon Cole
In a pivotal decision issued on April 17, 2024 by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the case of Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd against the Competition Commission has reshaped our understanding and enforcement of post-merger conditions in business transactions. Stemming from a 2016 merger that led to the creation of “Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa” (out of four separate entities), the case underlines the complexity of adhering to merger conditions imposed to safeguard fair competition and operational continuity.
The merger was initially green-lit with certain conditions focused on preventing job losses (“retrenchments”) and on harmonizing employment terms across the new entity. Despite these protective measures, certain challenging economic conditions, including a sugar tax and rising input costs, compelled Coca-Cola to undertake some retrenchments. This action sparked a legal challenge from the Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU), asserting a breach of the stipulated merger conditions that underlay the transaction’s approval by the antitrust authorities.
Central to the dispute was the interpretation of how merger conditions are enforced and reviewed under the South African Competition Act. The crux was whether Coca-Cola’s retrenchments violated the merger-specific conditions or were justified by external economic pressures. The Competition Tribunal, tasked with adjudicating the challenge, initially ruled in favour of Coca-Cola, recognizing the broader economic factors at play. However, this decision was overturned by the Competition Appeal Court, which led to Coca-Cola’s subsequent appeal to the Republic’s Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court’s decision clarified several crucial aspects regarding the enforcement of merger conditions:
Nature of review: The Court differentiated this review from ordinary administrative actions, focusing on whether Coca-Cola substantially complied with the merger conditions rather than strictly adhering to them without regard for external circumstances.
Causal connection: The Court criticized the narrow focus of the Appeal Court on the direct causality between the merger and retrenchments. Instead, it supported a more holistic approach that must consider all relevant factors impacting business decisions post-merger.
Implications for business strategy: The judgment emphasized the importance for businesses to thoroughly plan and document their strategies when complying with merger conditions. This is essential to demonstrate substantial compliance, especially when external economic factors might compel deviations from the expected course.
This landmark judgment highlights the dynamic nature of post-merger conditions and their enforcement, illustrating that adherence to these conditions must consider both the intended protective measures and the practical realities faced by businesses. For companies undergoing mergers, this case serves as a critical reminder of the need to balance merger obligations with agile business responses to external challenges.
The insights derived from the Coca-Cola Beverages Africa case provide valuable lessons for businesses and legal practitioners involved in mergers and acquisitions, especially in terms of planning, executing, and justifying actions taken in relation to merger conditions.
Competition Authority of Kenya emphasises the role of public interest in M&A reviews
By Joshua Eveleigh
On 05 January 2024, the Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) approved Nava Apparels L.L.C-FZ acquisition of the assets of Mombasa Apparel (EPZ) and Ashton Apparel (EPZ) on the condition that Nava retains all of EPZ’s 7019 employees on terms that are no less favourable than their current terms of employment.
Notably, post-transaction the merged entity would have an insignificant market share of only 3.83% in the market for the manufacture of clothing apparel for export. Accordingly, the merged entity would still face significant competitive restraint from various other market players post-transaction and, against this, the CAK found that the transaction would not result in any substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the relevant market.
Similar to South Africa’s merger control regime, the CAK is mandated to conduct a public interest assessment, in addition to the conventional competition assessment, during its merger review process. As part of its public interest assessment, the CAK has particular regard to the enhancement and sustainment of employment; the ability of SMEs to enter into and compete into a particular market; and the ability of national industries to compete in international markets. Where the CAK has a credible basis to conclude that a notified transaction will result in a public interest concern, it may prevent that particular transaction.
What is interesting in this instance, however, is that the merger decisions do not appear to include any particular period within which the retrenchment moratorium must be adhered to. Without guidance, the acquirer may find itself in the invidious position of not being able to retrench any of the 7019 employees for an extended period of time.
The CAK’s recent decision emphasises the agencies’ commitment to preventing merger specific retrenchments. Parties intending to conclude mergers in Kenya must proactively consider the effect of the proposed transaction on the public interest, as is the case in other African jurisdictions such as South Africa and be able to meaningfully engage with the CAK to proffer public interest commitments.
Fidel Mwaki, Kenyan lead partner of Primerio International, says: “An interesting decision by the CAK that highlights the need for businesses to seek legal and regulatory guidance on public interest factors that may affect their workforce retrenchment timelines when looking to conclude mergers.”
A perspective from private practice — the real cost of doing business in South Africa: Merger Control Disincentivizing Investment into the South African Economy
By Gina Lodolo, Joshua Eveleigh, and Nicola Taljaard
A Look Back:
South Africa has been trying to find the delicate balance between the promotion of public interest initiatives, attracting foreign investment and promoting the competitiveness of South Africa’s markets. In recent years, however, the South African Competition Commission (“Commission”) appears to have taken a more rigid approach towards requiring the promotion of public interest initiatives as an outcome of merger control investigations.
At the outset, it is important to note that the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Act”) allows the Commission to impose conditions on mergers and acquisitions that are deemed to result in a substantial lessening of competition or detrimental to the public interest.
In 2019, the Act also underwent a significant amendment regarding the public interest provisions. In accordance with the transformative values under the Act’s preamble, the amendment aimed to ensure that competition authorities have regard to public interest factors when assessing mergers and acquisitions and, in particular, section 12A(3)(e) makes provision for the promotion of a greater spread of ownership with a view to increasing the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and employees.
While the Commission was not so emphatic on the promotion of HDP and/or employee ownership immediately after the 2019 amendments, the Commission has been taking an increasingly robust approach to the imposition of these public interest criteria. Most notably, this can be seen from the widely publicised Burger King decision where a merger that raised no competition concerns was prohibited for the first time, based solely on public interest concerns (namely a decreased HDP shareholding from 68% to 0%). While the decision was ultimately settled before being heard on request for consideration before the Tribunal, it certainly indicated the trajectory of the Commission’s approach. Since the Burger King decision, the Commission has increasingly taken a hard-line regarding transactions that are benign both from a competition and public interest perspective.
While the amendments to the Act symbolize a benevolent effort toward the transformative objectives that the competition authorities are mandated to develop, a great deal of uncertainty stemmed as a result. In practice, the Commission’s interpretation of section 12A(3)(e) of the amended Act has been to place a positive obligation on the merging parties, post transaction, to increase the merging parties’ HDP and/or employee shareholding, often times utilising a benchmark of 5%. This is irrespective of whether a transaction is benign from both a competition and public interest perspective.
Merging parties, legal representatives and regulatory authorities have also substantially debated the interpretation and effect of the amended public interest provisions. The primary argument that contrasts the Commission’s interpretation of the amended public interest provisions, however, provides that section 12A(3)(e) is only one factor for consideration in determining whether a transaction that would otherwise have an adverse effect on competition or other public interest grounds, should be allowed. Premised on this interpretation, the Commission would not be authorised to refuse a transaction if it cannot show an adverse effect on competition based on a holistic assessment of the public interest grounds delineated in section 12A(3).
The Commission’s application of the public interest provision has increasingly lacked clarity and predictability, thereby creating uncertainty in the merger review process, and making it challenging for businesses to plan and execute transactions with confidence. This is particularly so when transactions are subject to long-stop dates where protracted engagements and negotiations with the Commission risk the termination of the entire agreement. To circumvent the incurrence of frictional costs and risks of breaching any long-stop dates, private practitioners are experiencing an increased amount of global mergers carving-out (or at least considering to) the South African legs of those transactions.
Firms are often concerned about the potential dilution of existing shareholders’ equity, regardless of the size of the firm. Foreign investors may be concerned about the impact of the allocation of new shares to employees on their current ownership stakes, potentially reducing their control and influence over the merged entity.
Further uncertainty surrounded how the application of what appears to be a 5% public interest divestiture approach will apply in all circumstances. For example, it is unclear whether this would apply to all merging parties even if the two merging entities are wholly owned BBBEE entities. Furthermore, how should firms divest a 5% stake in the merged entity where the underlying transaction involves land and no employees? These are some examples of the difficult questions the Commission has yet to consider if it is to continue with the outright application of its interpretation of the Act.
In addition, by insisting on ownership-related commitments from merging parties, the Commission’s policy undermines the efficacy of the BEE framework, as parties are likely to take the view that any efforts to improve their BEE profiles outside of the ambit of the transaction may, on the Commission’s approach and assessment, carry very little weight. Accordingly, firms may start to favour an approach of decreasing their BEE efforts prior to transactions in preparation of having conditions imposed on them. Firms may also start to undervalue the target to account for additional public interest spend or carve out the South African part of the transaction to circumvent this cumbersome condition.
Over an extended period, the outcome becomes evident for South Africa – increased uncertainty and an impractical application of the Act will result in decreased in investment; potential prohibition of competitively benign mergers and increased transaction costs.
While the Commission’s approach is prima facie laudable, the unintended consequences may result in a counterintuitive outcome and cause greater long-term prejudice to the public interest and growth of the South African economy. This is particularly true in light of the much-needed foreign direct investment South Africa requires following the effects of Covid-19, greylisting and economic instability.
Introduction of Public Interest Guidelines
On 28 September 2023, the Commission released their ‘Draft Amended Public Interest Guidelines relating to Merger Control’ for public comment accessible here (“Public Interest Guidelines”).
On the same day, at the Commission’s 17th Annual Conference, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition (“DTIC”), Minister Ebrahim Patel, lauded the amendments to the Act and stated that the increasing imposition of public interest conditions on mergers has resulted:
in a contribution of R67 billion towards the local economy;
the saving of at least 236 000 jobs over a period of five years;
the creation of at least 22 000 jobs;
and 143 000 workers now being shareholders in companies.
While there have certainly been commendable strides towards the achievement of promoting the transformation of the local economy, the above statistics do not paint a full picture. While many firms will continue to consent to the public interest commitments suggested by the Commission, for fear of an outright merger prohibition, a number of firms would rather carve-out the South African leg of multi-jurisdictional deals. This, in itself, would stifle economic growth and adversely effect the public interest in the long-term (as consumers do not stand to enjoy the benefits of pro-competitive mergers).
The Public Interest Guidelines are intended to formalise the Commission’s policy approach discussed above when evaluating public interest factors.
We outline the pertinent aspects of the Public Interest Guidelines below:
Commission’s approach to public interest factors in merger control
Section 12A of the Competition Act provides that both the competition and public interest assessments carry equal weight in merger considerations.
Regardless of whether a merger is found to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition (“SPLC”), the Public Interest Guidelines provide that the Commission must still determine whether the merger is “justifiable on Public Interest grounds”. In this regard, the Commission will determine the effect of the merger on each of the public interest elements arising from the merger to determine the net effect of the merger on the public interest.
General approach to assessing public interest provisions
The Commission considers that a merger assessment requires a quantitative and qualitative determination into the merger’s likely effect on:
a particular industrial sector or region;
employment;
the ability of small and medium businesses, or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, to effectively enter into, participate in or expand within the market;
the ability of national industries to compete in international markets; and
the promotion of a greater spread of ownership, in particular to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and workers in firms in the market.
Where the Commission concludes that the merger will have a positive effect on one of the above factors, there will be no further assessment into that factor. Where, however, the Commission finds that one of the above factors is substantially negatively impacted by the merger, the Commission will consider remedies to address these adverse impacts.
Importantly, the Public Interest Guidelines provide that where a negative impact on a public interest factor cannot be remedied, the Commission may consider “equally weighty countervailing Public Interest factors that outweigh the negative impact identified” on a case-by-case basis.
Where a merger is found to positively impact a majority of the above public interest factors, these may be outweighed countervailed by a substantial negative effects from a single public interest factor.
Approach to induvial public interest factors
The Public Interest Guidelines provide guidance on how the Commission will assess each of the public interest factors. For purposes of this summary, we focus primarily on “the promotion of a greater spread of ownership…by [HDPs] and workers…” factor which has caused the greatest degree of uncertainty, transaction costs and protracted negotiations with the Commission. This factor stands out from the rest of the public interest factors as the Public Interest Guidelines make it clear that the Commission considers section 12A(3)(e) of the Competition Act to confer a “positive obligation on merging parties to promote or increase a greater spread of ownership, in particular by HDPs and/or Workers in the economy.” In this regard, the Commission regards every merger having an effect in South Africa as having to promote HDP and/or worker ownership and therefore assumes no neutral effect.
In light of the above, where a merger does not promote HDP and/or worker ownership, it will be regarded as having an adverse impact on that particular public interest factor and, if considered substantial enough, may render the merger unjustifiable on public interest grounds.
The Public Interest Guidelines go further so as to state that where a merger promotes HDP ownership, this would not preclude the Commission’s obligation to consider an increase of ownership by workers.
Where the Commission considers there to be a substantial negative effect on the promotion of HDP and/or workers, the following remedies may be imposed:
concluding alternative ownership agreements with HDPs/Workers in either the acquiring, target or merged firm; and
divestitures to HDP shareholders which would create a greater spread of ownership in another part of the business. Importantly, the Commission will generally require that these HDPs and/or workers are actively involved in the operations (ideally control should be conferred) of the divested business and are not merely passive or financial investors.
Where the Commission proposes that an ESOP be implemented, the following guidance is provided:
where a merger results in a dilution of HDP and/or workers, the ESOP should remedy the full extent of the dilution;
where the merger does not result in a dilution, the ESOP should “hold no less than 5% of the value/shares of the merged entity but may be required to hold a higher shareholding based on the facts of the case”.
Where the Commission proposed that an HDP transaction be concluded, it provided the following guidance of the principles that ought to apply:
the HDP transaction should be no less than 25% +1 share and “should ideally confer control on the HDPs”;
the merging parties will have discretion to choose the HDPs; and
the merging parties must inform the SACC of the proposed HDP transaction prior to its implementation to assess compliance with imposed conditions.
Importantly, while the Public Interest Guidelines are not binding on the Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, they provide clarity on how the Commission intends on assessing mergers notified to it.
Despite an increase in certainty, the Public Interest Guidelines remain a cause for concern amongst the local and international private sectors as they have merely confirmed the policy approach that the Commission has increasingly been adopting in practice. In this regard, even where a foreign-to-foreign merger is notified to the Commission, it ought to consider how it can actively promote HDP and/or worker ownership and may become susceptible to ESOPs and/or HDP transactions in achievement of the Competition Act’s transformational objectives.
The Public Interest Guidelines are open for public comment until 28 October 2023 and are likely to be subject to extensive submissions.
The COMESA Competition Commission Issues Its First Partial Refusal to Grant Merging Parties Permission to Consummate Merger
By Tyla Lee Coertzen
On 2 September 2023, the COMESA Competition Commission released its decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition by Akzo Nobel N.V (“AkzoNobel”) of Kansai Plascon East Africa Proprietary Limited (“KPEA”) and Kansai Plascon Africa Limited (“KPAL”) (the “Target Firms”). The CCC’s decision in this merger represents the first merger prohibition it has issued since its inception in 2013.
In terms of the proposed acquisition, AkzoNobel was set to acquire 83.31% of the issued share capital of KPAL and 100% of the issued share capital of KPEA from Kansai Paint Co. Ltd.
AkzoNobel is a Dutch multinational company active in the manufacture and sale of paints and coatings, with a presence in Egypt, Mauritius, Tunisia and Zambia and Zambia. In addition, AkzoNobel supplies paints to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The Target Firms are also active in the manufacture and supply of coating products. KPEA maintains a presence in Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zanzibar and operates five manufacturing plants, four of which are located within the Common Market (namely in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia). KPAL also has manufacturing plants in the Common Market, namely in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe and derives turnover in Eswatini.
This would-be transaction has a somewhat convoluted history and was, by some observers’ interpretations, many years in the making. As Andreas Stargard notes regarding our prior reporting, “this very publication has analysed the COMESA competition troubles of the merging paints makers of the recent past. These have included failure-to-file mandatory notifications (and also here), as well as a paints cartel-conduct inquiry by the CCC, after Akzo and Kansai’s acquisitive hunger had initially begun in 2013 with disputes over use of the Sadolin brand in Uganda and elsewhere — coincidentally the same year the CCC became functional.”
In addition, notably, the same transaction was prohibited by the South African Competition Commission in late 2022 (which decision is currently being determined by the South African Competition Tribunal). The merger is also currently being assessed by the Namibian Competition Commission.
In its assessment of the market for the manufacture and supply of decorative paints, the CCC identified several competition concerns arising from the proposed merger. Specifically, it identified that the merger would result in a combination of two strong paint brands (namely Plascon and Dulux) and that there were no effective competitors present who would pose a real ability to counter the undue market power and unilateral conduct arising thereof.
While the merging parties proffered a number of commitments, the CCC found that such commitments would not sufficiently remedy the decrease in competition in the market (particularly in Eswatini, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The CCC thus outright prohibited the merger in these three Member States.
The CCC approved the merger in certain other jurisdictions subject to conditions proffered by the parties. Specifically, the parties are obliged to divest the Sadolin brand owned by AzkoNobel to an independent third-party competitor in Uganda within 6 months of the date of the CCC’s decision. In Malawi, the CCC approved the merger subject to a condition that the merging parties continue productions in the Malawi manufacturing plant for a period of three years after the CCC’s decision, in order to remedy the plant’s potential closure and job losses resulting thereof.
The CCC’s decision over this merger is a clear indication of the approach it will take to mergers which it believes will pose significant anti-competitive harm and competitive loss within the Common Market. Thus, the decision is an indication of CCC’s powers, adjudicative authority as well as its willingness to enforce its powers.
Competition Authority adds exemptions to boost economic activity
By Joshua Eveleigh and Katia Lopes
In a recent speech by Kenya’s Minister of Finance, Professor Njuguna Ndung’u, it is clear that the Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) will take active steps in promoting micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (“MSMEs”) in the local economy.
Firstly, to facilitate their growth and contribution, Professor Ndung’u, noted that government plans to ease the cost of doing business and to minimize compliance costs for MSMEs. Specifically, the CAK will exempt MSMEs from having to notify otherwise mandatorily notifiable mergers to the CAK. By removing the significant regulatory hurdle of obtaining prior merger approval, and its associated costs, it is hoped that Kenya will see a promotion of start-up and digital businesses. This development is particularly important considering that Kenyan startups ranked second, in Africa, in terms of funding raised but fell behind other African jurisdictions when it came to acquisitions of MSMEs. Fidel Mwaki, legal practitioner based in Nairobi, observes that “this is a positive move from the CAK that should hopefully bode well for MSME’s, many of whom are battling under the strain of increased taxation, inflation, and licensing requirements and will certainly benefit from the proposed waiver on merger notification fees.” His Primerio colleague, attorney Diana Wariara, adds that “regulating buyer power remains a challenge for the agency. A greater emphasis on audits and investigations may help strengthen the CAK’s enforcement mandate and ensure a level playing field and fair competitive practices within these sectors.”
In addition to merger exemptions and emphasising the CAK’s position as Eastern Africa’s lodestar in the enforcement of abuses of buyer power, the CAK will monitor and conduct surveillance audits, specifically in the manufacturing and agro-processing sectors, to further protect MSMEs from incidences of abuses of buyer power. Professor Ndung’u also noted that the CAK will implement codes of practice to ensure MSMEs in the retail and insurance sectors are protected from powerful buyers.
Lastly, Professor Ndung’u highlighted that the CAK will take measures to address the issues of price fixing by professional services, ensuring that fees and the quality of professional services remain competitive.
Given the pivotal role that MSMEs play in the Kenyan economy, comprising 98% of all local business entities and contributing approximately 24% of Kenya’s GDP, their promotion will be a welcome development among the local business community. In this respect, Professor Ndung’u’s speech demonstrates the CAK’s commitment towards ensuring a competitive marketplace that is free from abuses of dominance.
At today’s CCC Business Reporter Workshop, Senior M&A Analyst Sandya Booluck presented major plans to amend the regional trading bloc’s merger-control regime.
The most notable part of this “complete overhaul” of the CCC regime will be the likely change from the current non-suspensory to a suspensory merger notification scheme.
Says Primerio Ltd. antitrust counsel Andreas Stargard: “This change is, of course, still subject to approval by the CCC Board and the COMESA Secretariat Council of Ministers, but it is likely to pass in my personal opinion. This is especially true since, as former CCC Head Lipimile pointed out at today’s session, this change was in fact demanded by several of the NCAs of the COMESA member states, also in view of the Art. 24(8) referral procedure. It thus presumably enjoys broad support from the bloc’s leadership and will obtain a passing vote before the end of 2023!”
A brief note from the “front lines” of the COMESA Competition Commission’s 10-year anniversary event: Isaac Tausha, chief economist for research policy and advocacy, provides the following statistics — notably for the entire duration of the CCC’s life decade so far.
In short: Gone are the meager days of fledgling notifications to the CCC.
Statistics Since Inception
369 mergers and acquisitions assessed. (Total COMESA revenues of merging parties: US$210bn)
Over 40 Restrictive Business Practices assessed
Over 44 Consumer Protection cases handled
More than 12 market screenings and studies undertaken
3 businesses fined for non-compliance with the Regulations
Doing a “back of the envelope” estimate, we at AAT are calculating the total merger filing fees resulting from those 367 notified deals to be possibly north of $75 million$65 million, so on average $6.5m “income” for the CCC per year (half of which goes to the 21 member states, of course, under the Regulations). This is notably without taking into account fines, e.g., a recent $102,000+ fine for failure to notify (as in our reporting on the Helios Towers / Malawi case).
Dr. Chris Onyango (Dir. Trade, Customs and Monetary Affairs, COMESA)Dr. Lipimile (former CCC CEO). Mary Gurure (Head of Legal, CCC). Andreas Stargard (Editor, AAT).
Anniversary of CCC’s 2013 Creation to be Celebrated, Developments Discussed
Next week, African heads of state, ministers of trade and commerce, the secretary general of the 21-member state COMESA organization, Commissioners, and several heads of various competition agencies across the region, from Egypt to Eswatini & from Mauritius to Malawi, will join antitrust practitioners, legal experts, business people, and journalists in celebrating the occasion of the 10-year anniversary of the COMESA Competition Commission in Lilongwe, where the agency is headquartered.
Of course, AAT will be there to cover it.
As leaders of this august publication will know by now, our authors have followed the development of the CCC since its very beginning: from the nascent stages of having only a rudimentary staff and foundational rule documents, lacking sufficient guidance for practitioners and businesses alike, to the significant developmental stage under its first chief executive officer, Dr. Lipimile, who built out his enforcement team to coincide with the stellar growth of the CCC’s “one-stop-shop” merger notification statistics and attendant agency reviews (hiring economists and lawyers alike from across COMESA member nations) — and culminating, so far at least, in what we have come to call “CCC 2.0”: the latest iteration of the vastly successful multi-jurisdictional antitrust body, now led by its long-term member Dr. Willard Mwemba.
Under Mwemba’s aegis, the Commission has advanced well beyond a mere ‘rubber-stamping’ merger review body, as some had perceived the fledgling agency in its very early years (approx. 2013-15). The triple-C has since then begun to launch serious investigations into price-fixing, monopolization, attempted monopolization, gun-jumping, as well as market allocation schemes and secretly implemented transactions that parties had failed to notify.
While ‘antitrust is on our minds’, we note here for the record that, beyond its “competition” ambit that mostly remains in our focus at AAT, the CCC’s enforcement mission also includes a fairly large “consumer protection” brief, and the agency’s dedicated unit has investigated areas of consumer concern as broad as airline practices, imported faulty American baby powder, online ‘dark’ practices, pay-TV, and agricultural product quality disputes (milk and sugar come to mind) between Uganda and Kenya, to name only a few…
Our publication, together with several of the business journals and newspapers across the southeastern region of Africa, will report in great detail on the events, and possible news, to take place next week. Says Andreas Stargard, a competition practitioner with Primerio International:
“I look forward to hearing from these leaders themselves what they have accomplished in 10 years, and more importantly what they wish to accomplish in the near to mid-term future. In addition, I have a feeling that we may be treated to some truly newsworthy developments: I could imagine there being either confirmation or denials of the circulating rumour that the COMESA merger regime will soon become not only mandatory, but also suspensory. As most attorneys practicing in this arena know by now, the current Competition Regulations are not suspensory, which may be deemed too restrictive by the group’s Secretariat and its agency leadership in terms of its enforcement powers. After all, it is much more difficult to unscramble the egg than to never let it drop in the pan from the get-go!
Also, the CCC may reveal its plans in relation to a leniency programme for cartel conduct, which is plainly in order!”
Beyond that, Stargard surmises, participants at the almost week-long event may be treated to news about the CCC’s thoughts on digital markets, sectoral investigations, and the Commission’s upcoming “beyond-mere-merger” enforcement activities.
COMESA Competition Commission’s Revised Guidance Note provides much-needed clarity to parties in avoiding fines for late merger notifications
By Tyla Lee Coertzen
On 20 February 2023, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) published its “Revised Guidance on Engagement with the COMESA Competition Commission on Merger Filings”[1] (“Revised Guidance Note”), replacing the “Notice of Interim Measures in Merger Review of the COMESA Competition Commission due to the COVID-19 Pandemic”[2] (“Interim Measures Note”).
As per Article 24(1) of the CCC’s Competition Regulations, merging parties must notify proposed transactions to the CCC within 30 days of a ‘decision to merge’. The CCC’s Merger Assessment Guidelines further describe a ‘decision to merge’ to either be:
a joint decision taken by the merging parties and so comprise of the conclusion of a definitive, legally binding agreement to carry out the merger (which may or may not be subject to conditions precedent); or
the announcement of a public bid in the case of publicly traded securities.
Where merging parties do not provide the CCC with a notification within the above specified time, they are at risk to penalties of up to 10% of the merging parties’ combined turnover in the Common Market.[3] In contemplation of a fine, the CCC will consider the following factors for purposes of determining an appropriate penalty:
the nature, duration, gravity and extent of the contravention;
any loss or damage suffered as a result of the contravention;
the behaviour of the parties concerned;
the market circumstances in which the contravention took place;
the level of benefits derived from the contravention;
the degree to which the parties have co-operated with the CCC; and
whether the parties have previously been found in contravention of the CCC’s Competition Regulations.
Where the CCC has found parties to have contravened this Article, the CCC has imposed penalties of 0,05% of the merging parties’ combined turnover in the Common Market. However, where parties derive large turnovers in a number of COMESA Member States, even the lower end of the threshold could result in a hefty fine.
The above provisions have caused uncertainty and adverse effects against companies involved in lengthy deal negotiations and execution of large multinational mergers and acquisitions. Often, preparing a merger notification within 30 days of initial decisions to merge places results in large administrative burdens on merging parties who may meet the requirements of a ‘decision to merge’ even before the drafting or execution of important agreements relating to the merger.
The Interim Measures Note was published during the Covid-19 pandemic as a result of uncertainties relating to the timing of merger notifications submitted to the CCC upon recognition of “unprecedented, uncertain and challenging times.” The Interim Measures Note allowed for a relaxation of various rules related to merger notifications to the CCC, such as an allowance for parties to deliver hard copies of their filings after the prescribed 7-day period.
The Interim Measures Note provided guidance to parties who, as a result of the uncertainty posed by the pandemic, were unable to provide a complete notification to the CCC within the 30-day period as required by Article 24(1). In this regard, the CCC allowed parties to proactively engage with it during the 30-day period at the beginning of the merger notification process. Thereafter, the CCC would consider the filing complete after all information required is submitted. The Interim Measures Note provided that “as long as the parties have engaged the Commission on the notification process, they shall not be penalized for failure to submit complete information within 30 days of the parties’ decision to merge.”
However, the Interim Measures Note seemingly only applied during the ‘temporal period’ where the Covid-19 pandemic was rife.
As a result of the relaxation of Covid lockdown regulations and restrictions worldwide, the CCC has now provided further guidance on parties’ options where merging parties are unable to provide the CCC with a complete filing within the strict 30 day time period.
The Revised Guidance Note replaces and overrides the Interim Measures Notice released in 2020. The Revised Guidance Note recognised that in relation to the approach it took for Article 24(1) prohibitions, the Interim Measures Notice was “widely utilized by merging parties” and that the ‘initial engagement approach’ adopted by the CCC had proven “beneficial for both merging parties and for the CCC in monitoring non-compliance with Article 24(1) of the Regulations.”
As a result of the above, the Revised Guidance Note confirms that the CCC will maintain the ‘initial engagement’ approach until further notice and possible amendment to the Competition Regulations. As such, where parties are uncertain as to the conclusion of a proposed transaction within the strict timer period and fear being penalised for an Article 24(1) contravention as a result, they are advised to engage the CCC on the notification process within the 30-day period and shall therefore avoid being penalised. Importantly, the Revised Guidance Note provides that this approach will not apply where there are “unreasonable and unexplained delays in the parties’ submission of a complete notification.”
The Revised Guidance Note provides useful direction to parties who are engaging in proposed transactions within the Common Market and certainly provides clarity on how merging parties who are in good faith unable to provide a complete merger notification within the period prescribed by the CCC may prevent a fine for non-compliance of Article 24(1).
[3] Namely, the COMESA Member States, which comprise of the following jurisdictions: Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eswatini, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Egypt finally adopts a new merger-control regime that would transform the system from a post-notification to a pre-approval system.
After nearly twenty years of applying Competition Law in Egypt and After several attempts from the Egyptian Competition Authority (ECA) to introduce a pre-merger notifications regime and several discussions with government, the parliament and sectorial regulators; on Dec 4th, 2022 the Egyptian parliament has finally approved the proposal to amend the Law on Protection of Competition and Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices No. 3 of 2005 (ECL).
It is worth mentioning in this regard that Egypt was the only country in the region and one of the few countries in the world whose law was not adopting merger Pre- approval system; at a time when M&As increased significantly in the region during the last few years and in which Egypt occupies an advanced position.
According to article 19 of the ECL (Post notification) the acquisition of shares or assets, or joint venture that results in a change of control of an entity or material influence over such entity should be notified after 30 days of concluding the transaction if the combined turnover of the parties exceeds 100 M EGP. It is not yet clear if the non-controlling minority acquisitions would be included in the new filing requirement.
The statement by the ECA indicates that the new filing requirements would apply to merger and acquisition transaction when the annual turnover of the parties exceeds 900 million EGP (around U.S. $30m).
Under the new regime, the ECA will get to assess each reportable transaction prior to closing to decide whether to clear it or not, or impose conditions on approval. The ECA will have the authority to block a transaction that may result in “limiting, restricting, or harming competition”. According to ECA most transactions should be cleared as far as they don’t harm the market structure. The ECA will have the authority to block or to issue a conditional approval for the merger.
Two types of assessments will be included, as is the case with other legislations such as the Moroccan law, one of which is a preliminary examination of the transaction in question and the other is an in-depth examination as needed to speed up the adjudication of notifications.
The details and scope of the amendments will become clearer in the law and via ancillary regulations, and we expect there to be guidelines published in the near future as well. We will continue to monitor the progress of the entry into force and all relevant details for companies doing business in Egypt and the region more broadly speaking.
We expect more activity from ECA in the next stage for promoting and explaining the new amendments, and we expect more transparency and clarity when dealing with the concerned persons regarding M&As files, especially in the context of the short period of time required by this type of files and their impact on the market and on investments promotion in Egypt.
Currently, parties considering future transactions that may involve businesses with revenues in Egypt should ensure compliance with the latest Egyptian merger control amendments.
African Antitrust & Competition Law 