Category: public-interest

Borrowed Blueprints, Unintended Consequences: South Africa and the EU’s Digital Markets Act

Posted on by Editor

By Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya*

South Africa risks adopting the essence of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), if not its exact form, with the aim of reshaping the business models of online intermediation platforms. This marks a significant shift away from the principles of traditional competition regulation. 

In 2020, the Competition Commission of South Africa (CCSA) concluded that traditional enforcement tools might be inadequate to tackle structural barriers in digital markets particularly those that prevent new entrants or smaller players from expanding. This realisation led to the launch of the Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry (OIPMI). By borrowing a regulatory blueprint designed for the EU, South Africa could undermine its own digital ecosystem, stifle investment, and entrench local inefficiencies. The country’s growing interest in ex ante competition regulation via the Competition Commission’s market inquiries reflects an accelerating trend of policy mimicry without consideration of domestic realities. While there is broad agreement on the need for digital competition regulation, there is little consensus on how these rules should be structured, and approaches to implementation remain highly varied across jurisdictions. 

The OIPMI’s final report identified platforms such as Google, Apple, Takealot, Uber Eats, and Booking.com as dominant players distorting competition. It is claimed that, due to the significant online leads and sales these platforms generate and the high level of dependency business users have on them these scaled platforms can influence competition among businesses on the platform or exploit them through fees, ranking algorithms, or restrictive terms and conditions. However, this conclusion raises concerns about the underlying methodology. A central concern with the market inquiry approach is that it allows certain platforms to be identified as market leaders or sources of competitive distortion without requiring a formal finding of dominance, since such inquiries do not mandate that dominance be established. 

The designation has been based on characteristics typically associated with globally leading technology firms. Amazon, which currently maintains only a minimal presence in South Africa, was nevertheless singled out as a potential threat to competition. It is claimed that Amazon faces similar complaints in other jurisdictions, and it is argued that fair treatment of marketplace sellers is unlikely to become a competitive differentiator capable of overcoming barriers to seller competition. Moreover, the CCSA has indicated that it would enforce the same provisions against Amazon if it were to enter the market in a way that breaches the proposed remedial measures.

Regulating for hypothetical risks while ignoring tangible consumer benefits risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: global platforms may decide not to enter the market at all, leaving consumers, including small businesses and public services organisations with fewer options and slower innovation.

The OIPMI focuses on structural features that restrict competition both between platforms and among business users, facilitate the exploitation of business users, and hinder the inclusion of small enterprises and historically disadvantaged firms in the digital economy. Despite the absence of formal dominance findings, the OIPMI proposes a range of heavy-handed interventions, including the removal of price parity clauses, the introduction of transparent advertising standards, a ban on platform self-preferencing, and limitations on the use of seller data, many directly inspired by the EU DMA. 

In both of CCSA’s  2022 and 2023 findings, Google Search was explicitly accused of preferential placement and distorting platform competition in South Africa. More concerning still are the CCSA’s proposed remedies in its final report- requiring targeted companies to offer free advertising space to rivals, artificially boost local competitors in search rankings, and redesign their platforms to favour smaller firms. The SACC has recommended that Google introduce identifiers, filters, and direct payment options to support local platforms, SMEs, and Black-owned businesses, and contribute ZAR150 million (around EUR 7 million) to offset its competitive advantage. For search results, Google is required to introduce a new platform sites unit (or carousel) that prominently showcases smaller South African platforms relevant to the user’s query such as local travel platforms in travel-related searches entirely free of charge. This goes beyond competition enforcement and crosses into market engineering, compelling global firms not just to compete by government decree, but to subsidise rivals and actively shape market outcomes.

In 2025, South Africa’s Competition Commission also doubled down with its provisional Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI), calling for additional remedies targeting online advertising, content distribution, and the visibility of news media. These recommendations are again influenced by EU-style regulations, particularly the EU Copyright Directive, which harms the diversity and sustainability of small news publishers. However, the report downplays South Africa’s unique institutional constraints and specific market dynamics. If adopted, the proposals would compel digital platforms to subsidise select publishers based on arbitrary and hard-to-measure assessments of news content’s value to Google’s business. This could limit access to information, hinder innovation, and monetisation efforts, ultimately narrowing consumer choice and weakening the vibrancy of the content ecosystem.

More broadly, through these market inquiries South Africa risks undermining its evolving digital economy by pursuing an approach that will deter foreign investment due to ambiguous and discretionary enforcement. At the same time, the proposed regulatory burdens could disproportionately affect domestic firms that simply lack the resources to comply. This regulatory uncertainty threatens to stifle innovation and hinder progress toward regional digital integration. In a country where corruption remains a persistent challenge, granting regulators wide discretionary powers over digital market outcomes also raises serious governance concerns. Moreover, by enforcing a narrow and politicised notion of “fairness”, South Africa risks sacrificing consumer choice and strangling the diversity of digital services that a competitive market would otherwise deliver.

Notably, coming back to the EU’s DMA, it was crafted for specific European conditions, particularly in markets where technologically-leading global platforms held relatively high market shares in many EU Member States. Yet even within the EU, the DMA remains hotly disputed – not least because it targets large non-European companies that have long been politically embraced for injecting digitisation into traditional industries and, through competition, helped European businesses and consumers benefit from technology innovation. 

EU digital policies, developed from the perspective of wealthy, mature (Western) European markets, should not be assumed to be readily applicable elsewhere. South Africa’s digital markets are still in their infancy, ICT infrastructure remains unevenly developed, and regulatory institutions face significant resource constraints. Emulating the DMA – even informally – risks premature intervention, regulatory overreach, and the distortion of competitive dynamics before they have had a proper chance to emerge and mature.

Competition policy undoubtedly has a role in promoting competition. But poorly tailored rules may end up punishing the very firms that South Africa needs to scale and empower its own digital economy. Instead of replicating the EU’s Digital Markets Act, South Africa should focus on evidence-based case-by-case enforcement – grounded in its own market realities and institutional capabilities. Otherwise, South Africa risks becoming the casualty of a regulatory experiment designed for a different continent – with consequences its digital economy can ill afford.

*The authors are affiliated with ECIPE, the European Centre for International Political Economy

Whose interest is it anyway? CAK stresses ‘public interest’ in merger control

Posted on by Editor

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.”

Competition Commission Publishes ‘Public Interest Guidelines Relating To Merger Control’

Posted on by Editor

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:

  1. a particular industrial sector or region;
  2. employment;
  3. 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;
  4. the ability of national industries to compete in international markets; and
  5. 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:

  1. concluding alternative ownership agreements with HDPs/Workers in either the acquiring, target or merged firm; and
  2. 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:

  1. where a merger results in a dilution of HDP and/or workers, the ESOP should remedy the full extent of the dilution;
  2. 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:

  1. the HDP transaction should be no less than 25% +1 share and “should ideally confer control on the HDPs”;
  2. the merging parties will have discretion to choose the HDPs; and
  3. 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.

Concentration and Participation in the South African Economy: Levels and Trends – SACC Publishes Report

Posted on by Editor

By Michael-James Currie & Gina Lodolo

On 7 December 2021, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Ebrahim Patel released a report titled “Measuring concentration and participation in the South African Economy: Levels and Trends”, accessible here (“Concentration Report”). This Concentration Report is the first of many as the Minster undertook to update the report bi-annually from hereon out.

The theme of the Concentration Report is centered on identifying and remedying:

  • Economic levels and trends that are skewed and don’t reflect South Africa’s population demographic; and
  • Entrenched leaders in certain sectors, which creates “inefficient concentration” by setting high barriers to entry thereby reducing competition, which, according to the Concentration Report, can lead to higher prices and lower investment in South Africa.

The Concentration Report highlights that concentrated markets are of a rising concern internationally, however, specifically in the South African context, the apartheid era created dominant firms that persist and prevent historically excluded persons from participating and gaining market share.

The Competition Commission (“SACC”) does however note that concentration does not automatically mean there is a lack of competition and there may be many instances where concentration will be for the benefit of the consumer and pro-competitive. In this regard pro-competitive concentration can be seen when innovation creates increased market size and economies of scale reduce prices for consumers. Further, the SACC notes that there are still gaps in the data, which will be addressed in the subsequent reports.

The Concentration Report highlights that the SACC will hereinafter be concentrating its efforts on markets that have been identified to contain a role player that is presumed dominant. In this regard, the sectors that have been identified as requiring increased scrutiny are:

  • Farming inputs;
  • Agro-processing;
  • Sin (alcohol and tobacco) industries;
  • Healthcare;
  • Communications;
  • Upstream steel value; and
  • Financial services

This increased scrutiny will be seen particularly in industries that require licenses to operate. This is of concern to the SACC because licensing can be used as a mechanism to spread out ownership, which may be curtailed by a merger, and the SACC has seen increased merger activity particularly in industries characterized by licensing requirements.

To conclude, it is vital to take cognizance of this Concentration Report because the SACC has highlighted that it will form the basis of strategic enforcement of the Competition Act 18 of 2018 (“Act”) and will lay the path for policy centered on a concentrated economy.  In this regard, we foresee closer scrutiny of role players with large market shares in the years to come, especially those players that are presumed to be dominant or expressly mentioned in the Concentration Report.

A further challenge that the Commission faces in tackling perceived high-levels of concentration, is balancing the clear socio-economic objectives with competition law goals and consumer welfare enhancing conduct. Although the Report acknowledges that high concentration does not mean the market is anti-competitive, the general policy of the Report is clearly aimed as protecting or promoting a designated group of competitors as opposed to the competitive process itself. This creates an inherent policy tension and requires very clear, transparent and quantifiable trade-offs.

As the Constitutional Court recently affirmed in the Mediclinic case, higher prices to consumers is not in the public interest. The converse is of course also true. Intervention in markets which may lead to adverse effects on consumer welfare would need to be weighed against the objective of “opening up” the market. Where healthy and efficient entry is permissible, that may well be consumer welfare enhancing but if remedial actions are deigned to simply protect inefficient market participants then interventionist measures are likely to amount to nothing more than a tax on large players which either ultimately gets passed on to consumers or discourages investment. It is absolutely critical to South Africa’s economy and to the integrity of the competition law regime that the latter consequences do not materialize.

You can access the summary report here: https://www.compcom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concentration-Tracker-Summary-Report.pdf

Kenya Antitrust Enforcer Reiterates Warning to Professional Associations

Posted on by Editor

By Ruth Mosoti, Esq.

The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK, or the Authority) issued a public notice to members of professional associations who are seeking to set minimum chargeable fees for their members notifying them that they need to comply with the provisions of the Competition Act. The Competition Act (the Act) provides for parties to file an application for an exemption on behalf of any association whose agreements may contravene the Act. Notably, the determination of an exemption application factors in public-interest considerations. In addition to this, when an exemption is granted, the same is not perpetual the period of validity of the exemption is at the discretion of the Authority.

Regulation of professional bodies is governed by different sources under Kenyan law. This can occur either through statutory law or rules issued by the professional bodies themselves. In Kenya we have professional bodies regulated by statute and others are wholly self-regulatory. This in turn brings in the issue of self-regulation and regulation by statute. As such, if a professional body is allowed by law to prescribe fees applicable for certain services offered by members of that association. Therefore, in such an instance then the Authority cannot fault such an association because the actions of the association are sanctioned by the law. In such an instance, the correct course of action would be the Authority to first seek intervention from the courts to declare such activities authorized by the law as unlawful and if successful, then any future activities of the association that involve the prescription of fees will be subject to an exemption application.

In 2017, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK) made an exemption application in regard to prescribing of fees charged by its members and the same was rejected by the Authority. Following the rejection of their application ICPAK has opted to bypass the Authority and has begun to push for the prescription of the fees through the law and in 2020, they published the proposed remuneration order. Similarly in 2020, the Engineers through the Engineers board of Kenya also have the draft scale of fees for professional engineering services.

As mentioned above, there is the issue of self-regulation versus regulation by statute. Relevant Kenyan law includes the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides for the making, scrutiny, publication and operation of statutory instruments. Statutory instruments include but are not limited to rules, guidelines or by-laws made in execution of a power conferred by an existing statute. It is important to mention the Statutory Instruments Act because under this law, all statutory instruments are required to carry out consultations with the Authority to establish whether the proposed instrument restricts competition. It is however unclear whether the opinion of the Authority matters because despite complying with this requirement. What would be interesting to watch for now is whether ICPAK is successful in its quest for setting of professional fees there being a gazette notice where the CAK rejected its exemption application over the same subject matter.

Associations that self-regulate fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the CAK and that is why the Authority has in the past successfully pursued contraventions by trade associations like in 2016, the association members in the advertising industry who were involved in price fixing were penalized. This can be compared to the activities of the Law Society of Kenya  which are governed by statutes which empower it to recommend to the Chief Justice fees to be charged in relation to certain services offered by its members.

In conclusion, while the CAK may be justified in its quest to reign in the behavior of professional associations that are engaged in conduct that may amount to price-fixing, there needs to be a balance in the approach the CAK takes, where protection of fair remuneration is taken into account while preventing what would amount to abusive conduct. That being said, the CAK should also consider challenging the other laws that are in place that allow the professional associations to engage in conduct that it believes should be subject to an exemption application.

Revisiting the Burger King prohibition: [Unintended] Consequences & [Possible] Reconsideration

Posted on by Editor

By Joshua Eveleigh

On the 1 June 2021, the South African Competition Commission (SACC) released its media statement announcing the prohibition of ECP Africa’s proposed acquisition of Burger King (South Africa) and Grand Foods Meat Plant Pty (Ltd) from Grand Parade Investments.   AAT published a note on this precedent-setting decision here.

Despite finding that the acquisition would not have any likely effect of substantially lessening or preventing competition, the transaction was prohibited as it would result in the merged entity having no ownership by historically disadvantaged persons (HDPs) and workers. In its media statement, the SACC states that both Burger King SA and Grand Foods Meat Plant form part of an empowering entity in which HDP’s have 68% ownership. This ownership stake would decrease to 0% if the transaction were to be approved. In this regard, Tembinkosi Bonakele, chairperson of the SACC, states:

“You had an entity that had quite an impressive transformation profile, and all of that was going to disappear at the stroke of a pen with this transaction.”

Unsurprisingly, Grand Parade Investments, as well as the general public, have responded to the SACC’s decision with discontent.

The topical concerns regarding the prohibition of the acquisition include:

  1. The unintended, prejudicial impact upon black shareholders of sellers / target companies; and
  2. The equally detrimental deterrence of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Republic of South Africa.

i. Harm to HDP shareholders

Grand Parade Investments had supposedly been attempting to sell Burger King and Grand Foods Meat Plant for a period of 18 months in order to settle debts and pay dividends to its black shareholders, whom had reportedly not received dividends for a number of years. Furthermore, the shareholders would incur even greater harm upon the SACC’s media statement as Grand Parade Investments share price would plummet by 10%, making future dividend payouts ever less likely.

Bonakele argues that the Competition Act cannot waiver in its goal of transformation purely because of the prejudicial impact that a decision may have on individuals.

“This is about the system, it is not about individual shareholders. We are not really concerned about the immediate impact on Joe Soap today, that’s not the criteria.”

ii. Deterring FDI

The decision of the SACC raises varying concerns for foreign investors, and understandably so. The key concerns can be encapsulated into the following: certainty, timing and costs.

Firstly, merger review is subject to ever-evolving standards. In this regard, foreign investors cannot approach a merger with full certainty as to whether it will be approved or not. Moreover, continually changing standards presents increased opportunities of opposition from competition authorities which furthers investor uncertainty. Secondly, subsequent to changing standards and increased opposition, the timing of proposed mergers is significantly lengthened. Lastly, the imposition of non-competition conditions on transactions incurs significant costs on the burden of investors.

These principles of certainty, timing and costs can be considered as the essential elements of a sound merger regime. Ultimately, the SACC’s decision of prohibition strikes at the balance of South Africa’s merger regime by introducing great uncertainty, prolonged timing and greater costs  – all of which present themselves as significant areas of concern for foreign investors.

In response to these FDI concerns, Bonakele states that South Africa’s democratic sustainability is of paramount importance and that foreign investors must consider the long-term effects that exclusionary investments would have on the Republic, particularly in regard to transformation and empowerment:

“But it’s not like empowerment imperatives are less important than FDI.”

A potential for reconsideration?

A window for reconsideration of the proposed acquisition presents itself where the merging parties present a better offering of HDP ownership. Bonakele suggests that this is potentially on the table as the parties to the agreement have continued engagement despite the SACC’s decision.

Therefore, the proposed acquisition may eventually find approval where ECP Africa and Grand Parade Investments agree on an improved HDP empowerment plan, of which the SACC is satisfied.

Image

Conclusion

In essence, the SACC’s decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition of Burger King (South Africa) and Grand Foods Meat Plant by ECP Africa has had prejudicial effects upon the seller’s black shareholders.

Further, the decision presents concern for foreign direct investment by striking at the essential elements of a sound merger regime, namely: certainty, timing and costs.

However, the chairperson of the SACC has now noted that the SACC may change its initial decision upon the improvement of empowerment considerations between the parties to the transaction.

https://africanantitrust.com/2021/06/03/south-africa-burger-king-acquisition-prohibited-purely-on-public-interest-grounds-in-precedent-setting-decision/

Precedent-Setting Decision: Burger King Acquisition Prohibited Purely on Public Interest Grounds

Posted on by Editor

By Charl van der Merwe

The South African Competition Commission (SACC) made headlines with its first prohibition of an intermediate merger that was based solely on public-interest grounds.

Emerging Capital Partners (ECP), a private equity firm founded in the US, was to acquire all Burger King assets from South African Grand Parade Investments, a South African majority black owned entity. 

The SACC, while finding that the proposed transaction will have no actual impact on competition, prohibited the transaction on the basis that the transaction will have a substantial negative effect on “the promotion of greater spread of ownership, in particular to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons” (HDPs).

The SACC found that the merger would lead to a 68% reduction in the shareholding of HDPs in the target entity.

As John Oxenham, director at Primerio points out, “public interest” considerations have long been a feature of competition law in South Africa, particularly in relation to merger control. In this regard, mergers, which may otherwise be deemed problematic, could be ‘justified’ on public interest grounds. Public interest, while initially limited to employment, was first informally expanded through notable mergers such as Walmart/Massmart (2011) and AB Inbev/SAB (2016) where public interest conditions were imposed related to empowerment and ownership, through agreement by the merging parties.

The Competition Amendment Act, which largely became effective in 2019, formally expanded the recognised public-interest factors contain in Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act to include 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”. Further, the public-interest element was elevated to a separate and self-standing assessment, which must be assessed as an integral part of the merger assessment.

While the Competition Act, as amended, has made provision for mergers to be assessed and prohibited on pure public interest grounds since July 2019, the Burger King merger is the first merger to be prohibited on this basis.

SACC Commissioner, Tembinkosi Bonakele noted that the SACC had no choice but to recommend that the merger be prohibited as, clearly, the merger would result in a reduction of HDP ownership from 68% to 0%, which the SACC believes is substantial. This concern was raised with the merging parties, who were unable to address the concern in a suitable manner.

Regarding the broader impacts of the decision on investment and merger control in South Africa, Bonakele noted that the SACC is merely a statutory agency obliged to impose the law as it currently stands and, according to the Bonakele, there is no uncertainty regarding the transformation objectives which had been introduced to the Competition Act. The SACC is clear on its mandate in terms of the Competition Act, as amended, and will continue to implement such mandate.

The legal basis for the decision is clear, however, as is the case with any new legislation, implementation thereof less so. At the time of the enactment of the amendments to the Competition Act, it was well recognised that the practical implementation of these provisions will be critical and that it may lead to significant unintended consequences – including adverse effects on consumer welfare and even broader public interest. Primerio director, Michael-James Currie points out that, ironically, HDP-owned target firms might be negatively prejudiced by this criterion, as the pool of potential buyers is limited (and hence the value) if non-black owned firms are not able to successful acquire the target’s business.

It is not clear, at this stage, what the assessment in the Burger King merger entailed, what evidence was put forward by the parties and what the relevant counterfactual may have been. It is also not clear whether the transaction presented pro-competitive elements which outweigh the adverse effect on public interest – similar to what is required in terms of public interest where a merger may have an adverse impact on competition. The SACC confirmed, however, that the transaction was ultimately prohibited after ECP failed to adhere to requests to proffer conditions relating to shareholding and empowerment.

The SACC has the power to assess and prohibit intermediate mergers. Accordingly, the SACC’s prohibition can only be challenged by way of a request for consideration, to be filed by the merging parties, to the South African Competition Tribunal. The SACC opined, however, that unless the acquiring firm is prepared to make concession to remedy the public interest concerns, the decision is unlikely to be overturned.

Grand Parade has been vocal in its dissatisfaction of the prohibition. The matter will be highly contested, and it is not uncommon for transactions to be approved on a request for consideration to the Tribunal.  Furthermore, any decision by the Tribunal is likely to be taken on appeal to the Competition Appeal Court and likely also the Constitutional Court.

The Burger King decision, regardless of its eventual outcome, will leave a lasting precedent and shape merger control proceedings in South Africa going forward.

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

Posted on by Editor

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.

Download the draft version of the PCBEG hereDownload

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.”

COMESA antitrust enforcer holds COVID seminar

Posted on by Editor

 

Willard Mwemba
Dr. Mwemba of the CCC

The COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) hosted a live webinar today on the impact of COVID-19 on merger regulation and enforcement within the common market in the COMESA region.  The seminar was aptly sub-titled “Challenges and Way Forward,” and the CCC representatives, in particular Dr. Willard Mwemba, did indeed lay out the problems faced by them and the measures proposed and taken to alleviate them.

COVID-related business and national competition agency closures have led to “significant delays in information gathering” from NCAs, third parties, and merger parties themselves.

CCC has relaxed the hard-copy filing requirements for merger notifications.

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.”

That said, the CCC emphasized that its adjustment to enforcement actions should not be construed as any weakening of competition principles taking place.  The harmonization and coordination among the COMESA member countries’ agencies and the CCC remain a critical element of the operation of the single market.

PepsiCo/Pioneer merger: Minister Patel approves the Deal

Posted on by Editor

In one of the few megamergers of the 2019/2020 season, the South African Competition Tribunal approved, subject to a wide range of public interest related conditions, PepsiCo’s acquisition of South Africa’s largest FMCG producers, Pioneer Foods.

In predictable fashion, this was not the type of transaction which would escape the attention of Minister Patel (who oversees the portfolio of the competition agencies). Despite not being a transaction which raises any competition concerns (i.e. there being no substantive overlap in product portfolios) and no material public interest concerns, the merger was an acquisition by a major international producer, PepsiCo and Minister Patel has openly expressed his intention to involve himself in acquisitions by foreign firms in an effort to extract a “socio-economic” tax from the merging parties. This was first seen in the Massmart/Walmart deal in 2012 but more recently in the AB-InBev/SAB and SAB/Coca-Cola mergers.

Competition lawyer, Michael-James Currie points out that a noteworthy difference between the legislative environment in terms of which the PepsiCo/Pioneer merger was assessed are the amendments to South Africa’s Competition Act. Under the new merger regime, public interest standards have been elevated, as a test, so as to be on par with the traditional competition analysis. Furthermore, the public interest grounds which the competition authorities are mandated to take into account have been expanded and now specifically include ownership levels among historically disadvantaged persons (commonly referred to as BBBEE policies in South Africa – Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment).

The Competition Tribunal’s reasons are noteworthy. In a transaction of this magnitude, the Tribunal did not provide any reasons or findings as to the assessment of the merger. There was no analysis as to the relevant markets nor an assessment of the negative effects that the merger may have on the public interest factors.

The Tribunal’s reasons jump straight to the conditions ostensibly on the basis that the merging parties, the Competition Commission and Minister Patel had “agreed” to the conditions and, therefore, there was no reason to assess the transaction and the Tribunal could go ahead and rubber stamp the terms of the agreement.

Based on the majority of the conditions imposed, it is safe to assume that the transaction raised no material competition or public interest concerns. Notwithstanding that the transaction raised no adverse effects, the conditions imposed on the merger include:

  1. The creation of a BBBEE Workers Trust which will receive at least R1.6 billion (USD 10.6 million) in equity and the appointment of a non-executive director to the PepsiCo board together with voting rights of 12.9% in lieu of the equity for a period of 5 years;
  2. Employment:
    1. A moratorium on merger related retrenchments for a period of 5 years;
    2. An undertaking to maintain the aggregate levels of employment for 5 years; and
    3. An undertaking to create 500 direct new employment opportunities and 2500 indirect employment opportunities over the next five years.
  3. An undertaking to invest a cumulative amount of R5.5 billion (USD180 million) in production capacity over the next five years.
  4. Promote procurement from local suppliers and producers;
  5. Maintain all sales and distribution agreements currently in place for a period of two years;
  6. Contribute at least R600 million (USD60 million) to the creation of a development fund to be used for education, small medium enterprise development and agriculture programs.

Despite the substantial conditions imposed on the merger, Minister Patel surely finds himself in a catch twenty two. On the one hands, Minister Patel is a socialist at heart and has very much focused his efforts on utilising the Competition Act and authorities to promote industrial policy action and advance socio-economic objectives. Now, both as Minister of Trade and Industry and in light of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s drive to attract foreign direct investment, Minister Patel needs to tread a far more intricate line than ay previously the case (under President Jacob Zuma’s reign).

On the one hand, large foreign mergers present Minister Patel with a golden opportunity to extract non-merger specific public interest commitments – which merging parties often acquiesce to in order to preclude protracted litigation. On the other, Minister Patel needs to ensure that South Africa’s message to the rest of the world is that we would welcome foreign investment with open arms.

John Oxenham says that while it is perhaps regrettable that the Competition Tribunal did not grapple fully with the extent to which these types of conditions would have been objectively justifiable in terms of the new merger control regime or whether they amount to an overreach. While the Tribunal typically does not dedicate substantial resources to evaluating mergers when there is no dispute between the parties – and understandably so – the Tribunal should be mindful of rubber-stamping approvals of this nature. The message that this decision sends to foreign firms seeking to invest in South Africa is certainly not a warm and inviting message. The lack of analysis and objective justification for the conditions sends a strong message to merging parties that the most important aspect for purposes of obtaining merger approval is to engage and reach settlement terms with Minister Patel.

When the executive becomes the gatekeeper to merger control approvals (or competition law enforcement more generally), this very rapidly blurs the distinction of the separation of powers.