Category: new regime

Competition Authority of Kenya wrests right to control M&A from COMESA.

Posted on by andreasstargard

(See also our prior reporting here: https://africanantitrust.com/2013/01/31/kenyan-competition-authoritys-comesa-jurisdiction-questions/)

COMESA old flag colorkenya
The Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) has won the first round in its apparent jurisdictional battle against COMESA to control acquisition of shares, interest or assets among local firms, ending two months of uncertainty as to who the regulatory authority was for dealmakers. Kenyan Attorney General Githu Muigai has given the CAK the authority to act as the sole agency with the mandate to administer and clear local Kenyan mergers and acquisitions.

This power purports to shield, at least temporarily, local firms from the COMESA competition laws. Under the multi-state competition regime, firms engaging in certain mergers and acquisitions with an effect in two or more member states are required to seek clearance from COMESA’s Competition Commission, a process that comes with significant costs and time delays not expected to the same extent with the CAK procedure.

GCR BRICS roundtable interview with editor John Oxenham

Posted on by andreasstargard

For a lively discussion regarding the emergence of BRICS jurisdictions in the competition-law arena, please see our editor John Oxenham’s interview with Global Competition Review / GCR, here.

COMESA’s “opening hours”: clarifying timing rules

Posted on by andreasstargard

COMESA old flag color
As to the timing of submissions, COMESA’s Competition Rule 3 provides that when a time period runs out on a weekend or holiday (Saturday, Sunday or other day the CCC is closed) the submission may be made the following day (not a Saturday, Sunday or other closure day).  The Competition Regulations do not have any parallel provision regarding timing.

     So do the Rules govern the Regs?

According to an official from the CCC, the Rules are promulgated pursuant to the Regulations.  As they are designed to facilitate the operation of the Regulations, the Rule 3 computation of time is likewise applicable to the Regulations (where not otherwise specified).

Therefore, no need to file prior to the expiration on a weekend day — rather, file immediately afterwards.

Clarification of COMESA merger regime filing fee

Posted on by andreasstargard

COMESA old flag color

Yesterday, on 26. February 2013, the COMESA Competition Commission issued new guidance relating to the amended merger notification requirements, as follows. Note especially the clarification on the “higher of / lower of” filing fee issue that AfricanAntitrust.com had previously reported on, correcting several law firm client alerts, which had falsely described the fee as the “higher of” the two thresholds:

INTERPRETIVE MEANING OF THE NOTIFICATION FEE PURSUANT TO RULE 55(4) OF THE AMENDED COMESA COMPETITION RULES

Rule 55(4) of the amended COMESA Competition Rules reads as follows:

“Notification of a notifiable merger shall be accompanied by a fee calculated at 0.5% or COM$ 500000, or whichever is lower of the combined annual turnover or combined value of assets in the Common Market, whichever is higher”. The interpretation of the above provision is that the COM$500,000 is the maximum fee payable for merger notification.

1. When a merger is received, the COMESA Competition Commission (‘the Commission’) will first calculate 0.5% of the combined turnover of the merging parties.

2. The Commission will then calculate 0.5% of the combined value of assets of the merging parties.

3. The Commission will then compare results in 1 and 2 above and get the higher value.

4. The Commission will then compare this higher value to the COM$500,000. If the higher value is lower than the COM$500,000, the Commission will consider the higher of either the combined assets or turnover as a notification fee. If either the combined assets or turnover is higher than COM$500,000, then the latter shall be the notification fee.

The example below illustrates this:

• Company A proposes to acquire 100% of the assets of Company B. Both operate and have sales in at least two COMESA member states. Company A has turnover (within COMESA) of $15 million; Company B has turnover of $10 million. One-half of one percent of their combined turnover is equal to $125,000 (i.e., $25 million X 0.5%).

• Company A has assets (within COMESA) of $7 million; Company B has assets of $3 million. One-half of one percent of their combined assets is equal to $50,000 (i.e., $10 million X 0.5%). $125,000 (turnover) is the higher of the two figures in steps 1 and 2.

• Since the higher value of the assets vs. turnover (i.e., $125,000) is lower than $500,000, the filing fee is $125,000.

Nigerian antitrust?

Posted on by andreasstargard

nigeria
Today, AfricanAntitrust adds its voice to the steady, though infrequent, discussion surrounding the possibility of a Nigerian competition-law regime.

In our opinion, it is not a question of “if” but “when”, and perhaps more importantly, “how“?

“If”: it is a virtual certainty that sooner or later, the drivers of growth in the Nigerian economy (innovators, IPR owners and applicants, upstarts, and foreign investment) will succeed in their demands for an antitrust law to be enacted.

“When”: it’s been debated in Nigeria since at least 1988; there was another push in the right direction in 2002; and, since then, at least a steady trickle of intermittent calls for a central antitrust regulator, often coming loudest from the outside (as does this post). This general time line coincides with that of other developing or now emerging competition-law jurisdictions, and we believe it is now a question of years, not decades, until a Nigerian Sherman Act will see the legislative light of day. Our (admittedly unscientific) prediction is that Nigeria will have a competition-law regime prior to 2020. (Note: the latest of up to six bills introduced to date, the Competition and Consumer Protection Bill, has been languishing in the Nigerian Senate since 2009).

“How”: this is the kicker — the most interesting bit of the Groundhog Day story this would otherwise be and remain. The intriguing part about reigniting the discussion surrounding Nigerian antitrust law is that we now live in the age of COMESA and more importantly here, the COMESA CCC (Competition Commission).

This opens up new opportunities that may not have been envisaged by others in the 1990s or 2000s. For example: will the economies of West Africa band together and create a similar organisation, notably with “legal teeth”, which might include provisions for a centralised enforcement of antitrust? Will it be under the auspices of ECOWAS or UEMOA? A monetary union has been known to be an effective driver of ever-increasing competition-law enforcement elsewhere in the world (hint: Brussels)…

If the answer to these crucial questions is “no”, what are the consequences to the Nigerian economy? Will Nigeria continue on its path to outsider status when it comes to healthy economic regulation — despite its powerhouse status in sub-Saharan Africa? Will this add to the disincentive against increased foreign investment, akin to the prevalent oil and diesel-stealing that occurs ’round-the-clock and in the open? Will businesses — other than former state monopolies, now privatised and firmly in the hands of oligarchs, or cartelists — continue to accept being deprived of the economic fruit of their labour, without protection from certifiably anti-competitive behaviour? Will other state agencies continue to step in and act as quasi-enforcers of antitrust, as they have done in the past (the Air Cargo cartel is an example), filling the void of a central competition commission?

We are curious to hear our readers’ opinions.

Comment below or e-mail us directly (a.stargard [AT] primerio.international & j.oxenham [AT] primerio.international)

3 weeks until UAE competition law goes into effect

Posted on by andreasstargard

UAE
The first true antitrust law of the Emirates will come into force on 23 February 2013.  “Federal Law No. 4 of 2012” (not to be confused with legislation relating to nuclear safety of the same title) was passed by the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) government last October 2012.

Akin to established competition laws as well as some of its recent pan-African counter-part legislation (e.g., the 2004 COMESA regional antitrust regime that finally went into effect in January 2013), its primary jurisdictional scope encompasses:

  • (1) cartel prosecution and limits on similar restrictive agreements
  • (2) unilateral conduct / abuse of dominance, and
  • (3) mergers and acquisitions.

As to M&A, unlike its COMESA sibling, the law — fortunately — will contain yet-to-be-determined thresholds that limit the notification requirements to deals above certain market shares or deal values.  Yet, the filing requirement is suspensory, and notifiable deals must therefore be put on hold until clearance is obtained from the Competition Regulation Committee (or presumably pre-authorisation has been received from the Ministry of Economy).  The period for review permitted under the law is up to 90 days plus a 45-day extension.

Penalties for breaches of the competition regime (items 1 and 2 above) include suspension of business activities and financial fines that range from AED 500,000 to 5 million [>$1.3m] or about 1m euros], with mandatory doubling of fines for recidivists; failure-to-notify mergers may result in similar fines, based on a 2-5% turnover scale or the same AED 500k-5m range, depending on ascertainability of turnover.

Notably, there are several key business segments excluded from the reach of the competition legislation, including SMEs, the financial and oil & gas sectors; telecoms; pharmaceuticals; and the provision of traditionally state-provided or funded activities (e.g., postal services, electricity, water, sewer, etc.).  Whether these rather far-reaching exclusions are in effect throwing the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen…

The law also provides for a 6-month grace period.  This transitional period for companies to come into compliance, seek a waiver for non-compliance, or face prosecution under the law, will end on 23 August 2013.

Companies doing, or planning to do, business within the UAE may wish to review their existing business practices, market shares, competitive strategies, merger plans, and update their compliance programmes accordingly.

COMESA CCC now functional

Posted on by andreasstargard

COMESA old flag color
COMESA Fundamentals:

COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) is a supra-national group of 19 sovereign African countries; it is the successor entity to the 1982 Preferential Trade Area Agreement among eastern and southern African nations.  For starters, here is a map of COMESA’s member states, which are as follows: Burundi, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Notably absent from its membership is the largest economy of the region, namely South Africa.  Likewise, Tanzania is no longer a member, having left the bloc in 2000.

What is the competition-law relevance of COMESA:

Headquartered in Lusaka (Zambia), the 19 year-old organisation has recently upped the ante for companies engaged in commercial activities within the borders of COMESA member states…  It has created and activated the COMESA Competition Commission (the “CCC”).

The CCC, based in Lilongwe (Malawi), is tasked with supervising and enforcing competition-related matters within the bloc.  In this function, it may be compared to the Directorate General Competition (“DG COMP”) of the European Union, as a supra-national enforcement authority, specialised in antitrust / competition-law matters.  The CCC’s primary areas of responsibility are, unsurprisingly:

  1. Merger enforcement (using an “SLC” – substantial lessening of competition – test)
  2. Cartel conduct and other horizontal and potentially also vertical agreements
  3. Unilateral conduct (i.e., abuse of a dominant position in the market)

The COMESA Board of Commissioners is an appellate authority in relation to the CCC.  Companies may also maintain actions against COMESA member states before the Court of Justice, provided they have fully exhausted their national-court remedies.