Category: public-interest

Antitrust in the Digital Economy: Fighting Inequality?

Posted on by Editor

AAT the big picture

HOW CAN COMPETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY HELP IN THE FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY?

By DWA co-founder and visiting AAT author, Amine Mansour* (re-published courtesy of Developing World Antitrust’s editors)

When talking about competition law and poverty alleviation, we may intuitively think about markets involving essential needs. The rise of new sectors may however prompt competition authorities to turn their attention away from these markets. One of those emerging sectors is the digital economy sector. This triggers the question of whether the latter should be a top priority in competition authorities’ agenda. The answer remains unclear and depends mainly on the potential value added to consumers in general and the poor in particular[1].

Should competition authorities in developing countries focus on digital markets?

Obviously, access to computer and technology is not a source of poverty stricto sensu. In the absence of basic needs, strategies focusing on digital sectors may prove meaningless. In practice, the last thing people living in extreme poverty will think about is gaining digital skills. Their immediate needs are embodied in markets offering goods and services which are basic necessities. The approach put forward by several Competition authorities in developing countries corroborates this view. For instance, in South Africa, digital markets are not seen as a top priority. Instead, the South African competition authority focuses on food and agro-processing, infrastructure and construction, banking and intermediate industrial products.

There are however compelling arguments to be made against such position. Most importantly, although access to technology and computers is not a source of poverty, such an access can be a solution to the poverty problem. In fact, closing the digital gap by providing digital skills and making access to technology and Internet easier can help the low income population when acting either as entrepreneurs or consumers. In both cases competition law can play a decisive role.

The low income population acting as consumers

First, when acting as consumers, people with low income can enjoy the benefits of new technology-based entrant. Thanks to lower costs of operation, lower barriers to entry and (almost) infinite buyers, these new operators have changed the competitive landscape by aggressively competing against traditional companies. These features have helped them not only extending existing products and services to low-income consumers but also making new ones available for them. Better yet, in some cases increased competition coming from technology-based companies motivates traditional business forms to adapt their offer to low-income consumers so as to face this new competition and remedy shrinking revenues. Perhaps, the most noteworthy aspect of all these evolutions, is that these new entrants have, in some instances, been able to challenge incumbents’ position by driving prices downward to levels unattainable by traditional companies without scarifying their profitability.

A shining example of all this dynamic is the possibility for low-income consumers to engage, thanks to some mobile companies, in financial transaction without the need to pass through the traditional stationary banking infrastructure. For instance, in Kenya, M-PESA a mobile money transfer service that has over 22 million subscribers[2] and around 40,000 agents (around 2600 Commercial bank branches)[3] changed the life of million of citizens. The service enables clients to deposit cash into their M-PESA accounts, send or transfer money to any other mobile phone user, withdraw cash and complete other financial transactions. A farmer in a remote area in Kenya can send or receive money by simply using his mobile phone. In this way, M-PESA can act as a substitute to personal bank accounts. This experience shows how the digital economy helps overcoming the prohibitive costs of reaching low-income customers and thus raising living standards.

On that basis, we can easily imagine the counter-argument incumbent companies might put forward. In this regard, unfair competition and the need for regulation to preserve policy objectives are often in the forefront. However, there is a great risk that these arguments are simply used to restrict market entry and impede competition from those new players.

In fact, this kind of arguments do not always reflect market reality. For example, in some remote geographic areas, traditional companies and the new ones based on the digital/internet space do not even compete directly against each other. Accordingly, regulation intended to protect policy goals has no role to play given that the affected consumers are out of the reach of the traditional business. In the M-PESA example, it may be possible to argue that any operator engaging in financial transactions should observe the regulatory restrictions that apply to the banking sector in order to ensure that policy objectives such as the stability of the banking system or the protection of consumer savings are preserved. However, applying such a reasoning will leave a large part of consumers with no alternative given the absence of a banking infrastructure in remote areas. The unfair competition and regulation arguments may only hold in cases where consumers are offered alternatives capable of providing an equivalent service.

This shows the need to proceed cautiously by favoring an evidence-based approach to the ex-post use of the regulation argument by incumbent operators. This is however only one of different facets of the interaction between the competitive impact of companies based on the internet-space, the regulatory framework and the repercussions for people with low income[4].

The low income population acting as entrepreneurs

Second, the focus on digital markets as way to alleviate poverty is further justified when low-income people act as entrepreneurs. In fact, digital markets are distinguished from basic good markets in that they may act as an empowering instrument that encourages entrepreneurship.

More precisely, the digitalization of the economy results in an improved access to market information which in turn may benefit entrepreneurs especially the poor whether they intervene in the same market or in a different one. Practice is replete with cases where, for instance, a downstream firm heavily relies for its production/operation on services or products offered by an upstream company operating in a digital market. Similarly, in a traditional and somewhat caricatural way, a small-scale farmer may use VOIP calls to obtain market information or directly contact buyers suppressing the need for a middleman.

However, we can well imagine the disastrous consequences for these small-scale farmers or the downstream firm if mobile operators decide to block access to internet telephony services such as Skype or WhatsApp based on cheap phone calls using VOIP (this is what actually happened in Morocco). In such a case, the digitalization of the economy has clearly contributed to greatly lowering the costs of communication and distribution. However, low income entrepreneurs are prevented from benefiting of these low costs, which are a key input to be able to compete in the market.

The major difficulty here lies in the fact that, when low income people act as entrepreneurs, it is likely that they organize their activities in small structures. This result in relationships and structures favorable to the emergence of exploitative abuses. Keeping digital markets clear from obstructing anticompetitive practices is thus indispensable to ensure that small existing or potential competitors are not prevented from competing. This might not be easily achieved given that competition authorities’ focus is sometimes more on high profile cases.

*Co-editor, Developing World Antitrust

[1] Intervention may also be justified by the institutional significance argument. This significance lies in the fact that those markets are growing ones and challenging the common ways of both doing business and applying competition rules which in turn make it crucial for authorities to intervene by drawing the lines that ensure the right conditions for those market to grow and develop.

[2] http://www.safaricom.co.ke/about-us/about-safaricom

[3] http://www.safaricom.co.ke/personal/m-pesa/get-started-with-m-pesa/m-pesa-agents

[4] For instance, it possible to think of the same problem from an ex-ante point of view highlighting incumbent firms’ efforts to block any re-examination of the regulatory standards that apply to the concerned sector (no relaxation of the quantitative and qualitative restrictions). This aspect has more to do with the advocacy function of competition authorities.

The Coca Cola bottlers merger & the costs of placating third parties in merger control

Posted on by Editor

Tax Man Patel Strikes Again: Merger Conditions Going Beyond Antitrust

By Michael-James Currie

On 4 May 2016, it was announced that the merging parties to the SABMiller/Coca-Cola merger have agreed to establish a R850 million development fund in order to address public interest concerns raised by the Minister of Economic Development, Minister Patel.

south_africaThe latest deal struck with Patel follows the R1 billion commitment from the merging parties in the SABMiller/AB-Inbev merger less than a month ago.

Collectively, these two commitments, which equate to R1.85 billion (or approximately U.S. $132 million), exceed the total administrative penalties which were paid by over 13 firms in the “construction cartel” (in 2013, the total penalties amounted to approximately R1.4 billion) which is regarded as the most significant and highly publicised cartel to be investigated and prosecuted by the Competition Commission to date.

A South African competition practitioner with knowledge of the recent cases observed that “[c]onsidering that there have been, in our view, no substantial arguments raised that either of the two mergers pose any substantial anti-competitive concerns, it appears absurd that to date, not a single administrative penalty imposed on a firm for hardcore cartel conduct matches the quantum which the respective merging parties have agreed to pay to get their deals done.” It further appears evident that the conditions imposed, although broadly described by the Minister as being necessary to address public interest concerns, are in fact at all merger specific.

In a clear move to placate Minister Patel and preclude further intervention by the Minister which may have the effect of delaying the merger, the merging parties in both mergers respectively, have agreed to these conditions. The timing of the two commitments are, however, illuminating.

Patel talks.jpgThe commitment made by the merging parties to the SAB/Coca-Cola merger, which was filed at the Competition Commission in March 2015, comes after the Competition Commission itself recommended that the merger be approved subject to an agreed R150 million development fund to help train and support historically disadvantaged farmers and suppliers. Despite the agreement reached with the Competition Commission and a confirmed hearing in May 2016 (effectively 14 months after the proposed transaction was filed) the merging parties have recognised the risk of further delays should Minster Patel intervene during the hearing proceedings.

In contrast, the in the SAB/AB In-Bev deal, the top executives met with Minster Patel soon after the deal was notified (albeit behind closed door discussions outside of the SACC’s merger-control process) in an attempt to pre-empt Minster Patel’s intervention. It is expected that the Competition Commission would, today, conclude its investigation and make its recommendations to the Competition Tribunal some four months after the this deal was filed at the competition authorities.

Patel signature on 73AMinister Patel has expressed his satisfaction with the two ‘agreements’ as  it is in line with his express commitment to target multinational deals, in particular, in order to promote government’s industrial policies and socio-economic objectives.

In the world of commercial negotiations and deal-making, the parties are, however, hardly in an equally bargaining position when before the competition authorities – a bargaining chip in Minister Patel’s favour which is no doubt aware of.

Whether the strategies adopted by the merging parties in respect of both the SABMiller/Ab-Inbev or the SAB/Coca-Cola merger will pave the way for the expeditious conclusion of the review process remains to be seen (although we would tend to think it certainly will in Patel’s absence from the hearings). The agreements will, however, certainly influence the Landscape of merger control in South Africa.

The precedent set by these two proposed mergers will no doubt result in greater uncertainty in South Africa’s merger control process as the message seems clear. If merging parties want to get a multinational deal concluded in South Africa and you are in Minister Patel’s sights, pay-up – irrespective of the merger specific effects of the deal.

As Andreas Stargard, a U.S.-based Pr1merio antitrust practitioner with a focus on Africa notes: “It will be interesting to see whether the Competition Tribunal, which is tasked with ultimately approving or prohibiting a large merger, will consider whether the interventionist conditions imposed by the current ministry and agreed to by the merging parties are in fact merger-specific.”  Although the Tribunal is often reluctant to get involved in conditions which have been agreed to by the respective parties, the Tribunal should be cognisant of the fact that orders of the Tribunal are precedent setting and that imposing conditions to a merger which go beyond what is necessary in terms of the Competition Act as far as merger specificity is concerned, may be undesirable.

Both parties to both recent mergers have agreed to further public interest-related conditions pertaining to employment. In the SAB/Coca-Cola deal, the parties have further agreed to “maintaining employment at current levels for three years and not reduce jobs by natural attrition”, however, may retrench up to 250 “non-unionised” head office employees. Despite the intervention by Minister Patel (who formerly headed the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union) and the Food and Allied Workers Union, it would appear completely outside the realm of competition policy if the Competition Tribunal imposes this condition, as effectively the competition authorities would be providing greater protection to trade union members as opposed to non-trade union members. A clearer indication of a complete lack of merger specificity may be hard to come by.

 

Developments in South African Merger Control: Ministerial Interventionism and the Impact on Timing & Certainty

Posted on by Editor

“Partisanship can degrade the brand of the antitrust agencies, reduce their influence aboard, and discourage longer term investments that strengthen agency performance. Though difficult to quantify, these constitute a potentially serious, unnecessary drag on agency effectiveness”

(William Kovacic, “Policies and Partisanship in U.S. Federal Antitrust Enforcement” (2014) Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 79 at 704).

In their article entitled “Developments in South African Merger Control – Ministerial Interventionism and the Impact on Timing & Certainty,” John Oxenham, Andreas Stargard, and Michael Currie argue that, while the existence of ‘public-interest’ provisions in merger control is an express feature in certain jurisdictions’ antitrust regimes, the manner and regularity with which they are applied remains a significant challenge both for antitrust practitioners and for their clients gauging certainty of their foreign investments.

A consideration of the developments in the South African context indicates the substantial risks associated with the manner in which antitrust agencies and governmental departments approach public interest considerations in merger proceedings.

Merging firms, particularly multinationals, need to be acutely aware of the challenges and risks associated with the use of public-interest considerations throughout merger-control proceedings in South Africa. Recent interventionist strategies have had a significant impact on two key features: the timing and cost of concluding mergers in the region.

The paper was presented at this year’s ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, the largest competition-law focussed conference in the world, taking place annually in Washington, D.C.  AAT’s readers have exclusive free access to the PDF here.

John Oxenham and Wendy
John Oxenham

Ministerial meddling in mergers

Posted on by Editor

Intervention by economic ministry outside proper competition channels yields R1 billion employment fund

As reported yesterday, AB InBev has agreed to a R1bn ($69m) fund to buoy the South African beer industry and to “protect” domestic jobs.  It is widely seen as a direct payment in exchange for the blessing of the U.S. $105 billion takeover of SABMiller by InBev — notably occurring outside the usual channels of the Competition Authorities, instead taking place as behind-closed-door meetings held between the parties and the Minister for Economic Development, Ibrahim Patel, and his staff.

Patel talks.jpgAs we reported earlier this week, the previously granted extension of the competition authorities’ review was “widely suspected that the request for the extension is due to intervention by the Minister of Economic Development, in relation to public interest grounds. Although there is no suggestion at this stage that Minister Patel is opposing the deal, the proposed intervention does highlight bring into sharp focus the fact that multinational mega-deals face a number of hurdles in getting the deal done.”
AAT has reported previously on “extra-judicial factors,” as well as the interventionism by the current ministry.  This latest deal struck by Mr. Patel and the parent of famed Budweiser beer includes a promise by the parties to preserve full-time employment levels in the country for five years after closing, according to AB InBev.  Moreover, the companies pledged to provide financial help for new farms to increase raw materials production of beer inputs like hops and barley.
The minister is quoted as saying: “This transaction is by far the largest yet to be considered by the competition authorities and it’s important that South Africans know that the takeover of a local iconic company will bring tangible benefits.  Jobs and inclusive growth are the central concerns in our economy.”
ABInbev
The holy trinity of InBev’s beers
Our editors and contributing authors have reported (and warned) on multiple occasions that the extra-procedural behaviour of the economic minister effectively side-lines the competition agencies, thereby eroding the perceived or real authority of the Competition Commission and the Tribunal.  Says Andreas Stargard, a competition law practitioner with a focus on Africa:
“This ‘unscripted’ process risks future merger parties not taking the Authorities seriously and side-stepping them ex ante by a short visit to the Minister instead, cutting a deal that may be in the interest of South Africans according to his ministry’s current political view, but certainly not according to well-founded and legislatively prescribed antitrust principles.  The Commission and the Tribunal take the latter into account, whereas the Minister is not bound by them, by principled legal analysis, nor by competition economics.”
This is especially true as the current deal involves the takeover of SABMiller, an entity that controls 90% of South Africa’s beer market.  From a pure antitrust perspective, this transaction would certainly raise an agency’s interest in an in-depth investigation on the competition merits — not merely on the basis of job maintenance and other protectionist goals that may serve a political purpose but do not protect or assure future competition in an otherwise concentrated market.
Says one African antitrust attorney familiar with the matter, “What may be a short-term populist achievement, racking up political points for Mr. Patel and the ANC, may well turn out to be a less-than-optimal antitrust outcome in the long run.”

Merger Control in Africa: Hot Topic at the 2016 ABA Spring Meeting

Posted on by Editor

Key competition-law conference features dedicated panel discussion on African antitrust developments

By Michael-James Currie

The 54th annual American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting was held in Washington, D.C., during the second week of April 2016 and the AAT editors were there to ensure that we provide our readers with an update on the latest developments in relation to African antitrust issues, discussed during a panel held last Friday.

ABA Africa Panelists
ABA Africa Panelists

Given that mergers hit a global all-time high last year with the total value of transactions amounting to over USD 4.6 trillion, merger control is certainly at the forefront of many antitrust practitioners. The interest in mergers and acquisitions has perhaps gained even further attention in light of the announcement this week that the USD160 billion Pfizer/Allergan global mega-deal has been officially abandoned, despite the transaction having already been filed before all the relevant competition agencies around the world. While the Pfizer/Allergan deal was called off as a result of new tax laws and therefore not as a result of antitrust issues directly, the deal did put multinational mega-deals firmly in the spotlight.

The Pfizer/Allergan deal is not the only mega-deal that faced significant government opposition. It was announced this week that Halliburton’s takeover of Baker Hughes, in a deal valued at USD 25 billion, is going to be strongly opposed by the U.S. DOJ.

It is, however, not only the U.S. Government that is having a significant impact on multinational deals, as evidenced by the Anbang Insurance and Starwood Hotels & Resorts deal, valued at USD 14 billion, which has also been abandoned after mounting pressure by the Chinese government.

From an African perspective, the South African Competition Commission just last week extended its investigation in the USD 104 billion SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch InBev merger. It is widely suspected that the request for the extension is due to intervention by the Minister of Economic Development, in relation to public interest grounds. Although there is no suggestion at this stage that Minister Patel is opposing the deal, the proposed intervention does highlight bring into sharp focus the fact that multinational mega-deals face a number of hurdles in getting the deal done.

‘Getting multinational deals through’ is a hot topic at the moment amongst antitrust practitioners and is and the ABA thought it beneficial to have a panel discussion dedicated purely to merger control issues across African jurisdictions. In particular, the panel addressed some of the key issues which merging parties need to consider, including inter alia issues relating to harmonisation across agencies, the role of public interest considerations, prior implementation and the need for upfront substantive economic assessments.

The panel consisted of a varied mix of panellists from both private practice and government, and included Pr1merio director John Oxenham (he is also a founding partner at South African based law firm Nortons Inc.), economist and former Commissioner of the COMESA Competition Commission (COMESA CC) Rajeev Hasnah (Rajeev was also a former commissioner of the Mauritius Competition Commission and is an economist for Pr1merio), manager of the South African Competition Commission office, Wendy Ndlovu, and Kenyan based external counsel Anne Kiunuhe (Anne practices at the law firm Anjarwalla & Khanna).

The panellists were tasked with addressing a variety of topics: we summarise below some of the key issues which the panellists highlighted, which merging parties, practitioners and antitrust agencies themselves (amongst whom Tembikosi Bonakele, the South African Competition Commissioner was present in the panel audience) should be cognisant of in relation to merger control in Africa.

John Oxenham and Wendy
John Oxenham and Wendy Ndlovu at ABA Spring Meeting 2016 in Washington, D.C.

John Oxenham

John pointed out that from a South African perspective, mergers undergo a robust evaluation by the Competition Authorities and that although the investigation of most large mergers is completed within 60-70 days, the fact that the Commission may request the Competition Tribunal for an extension of up to 15 business days at a time, may result in the investigation of certain mergers taking considerably longer. The risk of a merger being delayed is increased significantly due to the level of third party interventionism, particularly ministerial intervention on public interest grounds.

John advised that merging parties should consider the impact that a particular merger will have on the public-interest grounds upfront to avoid delays in the investigation period as a result of further requests for information from the Commission, or may even amount to an incomplete filing.

In respect of substantive economic assessments, John pointed out that a number of jurisdictions, including South Africa, Namibia, Zambia and to a lesser extent Botswana, requires a substantive upfront economic assessment. In this regard the South African Competition Commission is perhaps the most robust in its economic evaluation of a merger in light of the resources dedicated to its own in-house economic department as well as utilising external experts when necessary. John also highlighted the fact that the South African Competition Authorities rely on oral testimony and expert witnesses are often subjected to substantial and lengthy examination and cross examination before the Competition Tribunal.

On the topic of gun-jumping or prior implementation, John mentioned that the following jurisdictions are examples of countries which do not require notification prior to implementing the transaction – in other words, they are not suspensory:

  1. Malawi
  2. Senegal
  3. Mauritius

Whereas the following countries do require notification prior to implementation (suspensory merger control jurisdictions):

  1. South Africa
  2. Swaziland
  3. Zambia
  4. Botswana

On harmonisation, John confirmed that in relation to public interest considerations in merger control, the South African competition authorities play a leading role on the African continent and pointed out that in addition to Kenya and Tanzania, Namibia also considers public interest considerations and that there is a substantial amount of collaboration and information sharing between the South African and Namibian competition authorities, as was the case in the Walmart/Massmart deal.

Despite the information sharing between agencies, John confirmed that there are rules in place to protect confidential and legally privileged information and that the South African competition authorities are cognisant and respectful of these provisions.

Rajeev Hasnah

Rajeev Hasnah, Pr1merio economist and former COMESA Competition Commissioner
Rajeev Hasnah, Pr1merio economist and former COMESA Competition Commissioner, and Anne Kiunuhe from Kenya

Rajeev noted the significant progress which the COMESA CC has made in relation to merger control by publishing financial thresholds for mandatorily notifiable transactions and specified filing fees, as well as publishing guidelines which clarify when a merger will have a sufficient regional dimension to fall within the COMESA CC’s jurisdiction.

On the topic of harmonisation, Rajeev discussed the challenges due to a lack of harmonisation between COMESA and its member states and noted that COMESA does not have exclusive jurisdiction in the cases which do fall within its jurisdiction. Parties, therefore, may find themselves being required to file a merger both before the COMESA CC as well as before the respective national authorities. A further challenge facing the COMESA CC is that there are 19 member states and consequently, the relevant geographic market is significant. Accordingly, often the national authorities are best placed to evaluate a merger and will therefore defer the evaluation of the merger to the relevant national authority.

On the role of economic assessments, Rajeev stated that an economic assessment underlies any merger evaluation and that both the Mauritius Competition Commission and the COMESA Competition Commission conducts a comprehensive economic assessment of a merger.

Wendy Ndlovu

When asked on what role public interest considerations play in merger control in terms of the South African competition regime, Wendy indicated that the framework of the Competition Act specifically requires the competition authorities to consider the impact that a merger may have on the four specified public interest provisions contained in the Act. Wendy confirmed that an evaluation of public interest considerations may both justify a merger despite the merger likely being likely to cause a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the market, alternatively, public interest considerations may lead to a prohibition or the imposition of conditions on a merger which raises no competition law concerns and may in fact be pro-competitive.

Wendy recognised that there is a need, however, for greater certainty in respect to the manner in which the South African authorities evaluate public interest considerations and pointed out that the Competition Commission is likely to finalise and publish its guidelines on the public interest assessment in an effort to promote greater certainty.

On prior the issue of prior implementation, Wendy pointed out that merging parties need to be mindful of the consequences of gun-jumping and noted that the South African Competition Tribunal has imposed administrative penalties, as in the Netcare case, on parties for failing to notify a mandatorily notifiable transaction.

Anne Kiunuhe

Anne discussed the Competition Authority of Kenya’s (CAK) willingness to focus not only on merger control but has also identified the CAK’s increasing tendency to investigate and prosecute firms engaged in restrictive practices (as demonstrated by the recent dawn raids conducted by the CAK in the fertiliser industry). Despite the CAK’s growing confidence, Anne pointed out that in respect of merger control, the CAK is open to and in fact often relies on precedent from foreign jurisdictions when evaluating a merger. In particular, Anne noted that public interest grounds are specifically considered during the merger review procedure and that in this respect, the CAK largely takes the lead from the South African competition authorities.

From a practical perspective, Anne mentioned that the CAK usually requests a meeting with the merging parties soon after a transaction has been notified, and that usually representatives from the merging parties, along with local external legal counsel, should be present. The CAK prefers that the representatives present should be the best placed to answer or address the CAK’s queries. This often necessitates representatives from the parent company being present as opposed to representatives from the subsidiary entities only.

The direct contact between the CAK and the merging parties is quite different from the manner in which the COMESA CC evaluates mergers where the consideration of a merger is done solely on the papers and any communication between the COMESA CC and the merging parties is done through the merging parties’ local external counsel.

As to legislative developments, Anne pointed out that the merger regulations in Kenya now provide that for purposes of establishing a “change of control”, it is sufficient if the acquiring firm is able to materially influence the commercial decisions of the target firm. Accordingly, the acquisition of a minority shareholding for instance may constitute a change of control if the holders of such shares may for instance exercise veto rights.

On COMESA, Anne mentioned that the COMESA CC permits merging parties to seek a comfort letter when unsure as to whether a merger requires filing and that the use of comfort letters has been rather prevalent.

Conclusion

The role of public interest considerations in merger control was a dominant focus point throughout the panel discussion due to this unique aspect in a growing number of African jurisdictions merger control provisions.

Please click on the following link to access a an article on the role of public  interest considerations in merger control in South Africa, which addresses in particular, the impact of ministerial intervention in merger proceedings and the concomitant impact which such intervention has on the costs, timing and certainty of merger proceedings.

Namibian Competition Act to be Amended

Posted on by Editor

By Michael-James Currie

The Namibian Competition Commission (“NaCC”) has recently confirmed that the NaCC has submitted proposals to the Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and SME Development (“Ministry”) relating to possible amendments to the Namibian Competition Act.

namibiaAAT does not yet know exactly what the nature and scope of the proposed amendments are, although the NaCC has indicated that the current Act, which was promulgated in 2003, is out of date and does not sufficiently cater for Namibia’s context (relating both to Namibia’s economic and socio-economic environment).

Furthermore, the NaCC has indicated that the amendments are aimed at increasing the NaCC’s enforcement capabilities and address ‘loopholes’ in the current Act.

In this regard, Minister Calle Schlettwein under whose portfolio the NaCC falls, stated that: “I am made to understand that in the years ahead, the Commission will focus on moving forward as a highly competent and equipped market regulator, especially in addressing market distortions on monopolistic and collusive behaviour and inefficiencies on price formation processes in the country that impact on the consumer welfare and the broader structure of the economy.  To this end, its activities are to be driven by the adoption of a National Competition Policy as well as revisions to the Competition Act.”

As Andreas Stargard notes, ‘[i]t would not be surprising if the proposed amendments related to “complex monopolies” and the introduction of criminal sanctions for cartel conduct,’ as this would be in line with the amendments made to the South African Competition Act (although not yet in force).  “Moreover, the Namibian commission will also likely cater for so-called ‘public interest’ elements in its enforcement strategy, as we have seen in several African jurisdictions.”  Stargard’s law partner at Pr1merio, John Oxenham, likewise emphasises “the strong ties between the two respective competition authorities” in southern Africa:

“The NaCC has often taken the lead from the South African competition authorities in respect of the interpretation and enforcement of competition law matters. The Namibian Competition Act is also largely moulded around the South African Competition Act.”

The strong links between the two respective authorities culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding under the heading, “In the field of competition law, enforcement and policy”MOU-COMPETITION-COMMISSION-SOUTH-AFRICA-and-NAMIBIAN-COMPETITION-COMMISSION

The spokesperson for the NaCC has said that “the aim of the review is to strengthen the enforcement capabilities and machinery of the commission and to close loopholes that exist within the current law.  Our Competition Act is similar, in many ways, to that of South Africa and the amendment thereof will only raise our standards to international best practices but within the context of Namibia.”

Schlettwein is on record as saying: “I am made to understand that in the years ahead, the Commission will focus on moving forward as a highly competent and equipped market regulator, especially in addressing market distortions on monopolistic and collusive behaviour and inefficiencies on price formation processes in the country that impact on the consumer welfare and the broader structure of the economy.

“To this end, its activities are to be driven by the adoption of a National Competition Policy as well as revisions to the Competition Act.”

In sum, given that the proposed introduction of a “complex monopolies” offence and criminal sanctions in South Africa has led a number of practioners in that country questioning the constitutionality or the practicality of the these amendments, it will be interesting to see whether the NaCC takes these concerns into consideration assuming we at AAT are indeed correct that these are the amendments which the NaCC is also proposing to introduce.

The Big Picture: Market-Sector Inquiries in Africa

Posted on by Editor

AAT the big picture

Market Inquiries in Africa – An Overview

By AAT guest author, Michael-James Currie.

Most African jurisdictions with competition laws have included provisions in their respective legislations that allow the competition authorities to conduct market inquiries.

Market inquiries have proved to be useful tools for competition agencies in numerous jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, and is becoming a common and increasingly popular tool amongst an number of African agencies as well.

Despite the benefits that may flow from a market inquiry, it is important that competition agencies appreciate and have due regard to the costs associated with such inquiries. Market inquiries are very time consuming and onerous for market participants and should be used sparingly. Having said that, the focus of market inquiries in most African jurisdictions tend to be on markets which the relevant authorities have identified as having a large impact on consumers.

In other words, socio-economic considerations appear to be a significant factor during the screening process used in deciding whether to institute a market inquiry. Sectors such as food, healthcare and banking (at an individual consumer level) are some of the common industries which have been ‘prioritised’ or identified as important sectors.

While the number of market inquiries which have been concluded on the African continent is limited, as competition agencies gain more expertise and confidence in their mandates, there is likely to be a significant increase in the number of market inquiries instituted and firms conducting business in Africa, particularly within ‘priority’ sectors, should be cognisant of this.

We set out below a brief overview of the market inquiries which are currently being conducted in the various African jurisdictions.

South Africa

There are currently three market inquiries which are underway, one into the private healthcare sector and the other into the grocery retail market. The third market inquiry is in the liquefied petroleum gas sector.

The private healthcare inquiry was launched on the basis that cost of private health care in South Africa is a concern to the competition authorities. A revised statement of Issues for public comment was announced on 11 February 2016 and comments are to be submitted by 11 March 2016.

The grocery retail inquiry is focussed largely on the stricture of the market and the ability of smaller or informal retailers to compete, but will also address issues such as “long term lease” clauses (which has already been adjudicated upon by the Competition Tribunal).

The third market inquiry is into the LPG which was launched in August 2014 is expected to conclude in March 2016.

The only previous market inquiry concluded in South Africa was into the banking sector. This inquiry was conducted on an informal basis as there were no formal legislative powers bestowed on the competition authorities to conduct market inquiries.

Swaziland

The Swaziland Competition Commission (SCC) announced in January 2016 that a market inquiry has been launched into the retail banking sector. The SCC stated that retail banking service offered to consumers, micro and medium enterprises remained the most important sub-sector of banking. It is, however, the ‘current account’ which is the central product to be used as the starting point for the inquiry.

Zambia

On 1 February 2016, the Zambian Competition Authority (CCPC) announced that it will be conducting a market inquiry into the vehicle towing industry. While the CCPC indicated that it wishes to understand the “conditions of competition in the market”, although the inquiry came about as the CCPC had received numerous complaints from consumers that emergency towing operators were charging high prices. It remains to be seen whether this inquiry is focused predominantly on competition-law issues, or rather consumer-protection laws.

Botswana

The Competition Authority in Botswana (CA) is currently underway with a market inquiry into the grocery retail sector, focusing on shopping malls and in particular, the impact of long term exclusivity leases on competition in the market.

COMESA

Consistent with the competition authorities of South Africa and Botswana, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) has also launched an investigation into the impact that shopping malls have on competition. The CCC announced that it will carry out their inquiry by taking samples from the member states.

We have previously published articles on the announcement of this market inquiry on AAT which can be accessed by clicking on the following link: https://africanantitrust.com/category/market-study/

Coca-Cola/SAB Miller merger prompts onerous conditions

Posted on by Editor

Coca-Cola/SAB Miller merger prompts onerous conditions

Written by Jenna Foley, AAT contributor

The agreement between The Coca-Cola Company, SABMiller and Gutsche Family Investments to combine their soft-drink bottling operations in Southern and East Africa has been met with the proposal of onerous merger conditions. The new bottling company, Coca-Cola Beverages Africa, will bottle 40% of Africa’s Coca-Cola beverages with operations in 12 countries. Minister of Economic Development, Ebrahim Patel has, after considering the public interest issues in mergers, expressed concern on the effect of the merger on small businesses, supplier industries, employment and investment.

Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act (89 of 1998) prescribes that, “when determining whether a merger can or cannot be justified on public interest grounds, the Competition Commission or the Competition Tribunal must consider the effect that the merger will have on –

  • a particular industrial sector or region;
  • employment;
  • the ability of small businesses, or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, to become competitive; and
  • the ability of national industries to compete in international markets.”

The Competition Commission (the “Commission”), on the advice of Minister Ebrahim Patel, has recommended that the merger only be approved subject to a list of onerous conditions. One of these conditions stipulate that the merging parties invest R650m to support the development of black-owned retailers, small suppliers and developing farmers. Taking into account the above-mentioned section of the Competition Act it is yet to be determined how the R650m investment was calculated or the specific justification of such an onerous condition. In addition, other recommended conditions include requirements on employment and black economic empowerment (BEE) as well as allowing retailers who are given Coca-Cola branded fridges free of charge to stock the fridges with products made by rival companies.

The Commission’s concerns have arisen despite the merging parties’ consideration for public interest issues. The proposed merger, according to the Commission, is said to have a negative impact on employment and BEE. This has been expressed even though the merging parties have undertaken not to retrench employees as a result of the merger, except for 250 identified employees. In addition the parties have made a commitment to increasing their BEE shareholding. The Commission has further expressed concern about the negative effect the merger will have on suppliers, namely the weakening of their negotiating position, despite the merging parties’ undertaking to buy certain products (tin cans, glass and plastic bottles, packaging crates and sugar) from local suppliers.

In light of the above, the Commission’s recommended conditions to the Competition Tribunal, on the advice of Patel, seem far-reaching, leaving the merging parties with a heavy burden of complying with such onerous conditions.  The recommendation to apply these burdensome conditions has caused delays and the proposed merger has not yet been finalised.

Competition & the Public Interest

Posted on by Editor

The public-interest saga continues: South African antitrust & inclusiveness

More on the revised Guidelines for the public-interest assessment in southern African’s largest economy… By AAT guest author Anne Brigot-Laperrousaz.

In December 2015, the South African Competition Commission (the “Commission”) issued revised guidelines for the assessment of public interest provisions in mergers (the “Guidelines”). This document is a further step in a long process aiming at ensuring better efficiency in the Commission’s evaluation of mergers. One of the main rationale is that informed parties will be able to anticipate the documentation and data to be transmitted to the Commission in view of obtaining its approval. Transparency, predictability and clarity, all of them fundamental aspects of legal certainty, shall result in reduction of delays and enhancement of legitimacy of the Commission’s decisions.

In January 2015, the Commission issued a first draft of those Guidelines, open to comment by stakeholders. Several bodies answered positively to this initiative, including law firms (Bowman Gilfilan, Baker & McKenzie, …), companies (Vodacom, Tabacks), international associations (International Bar Association) and policy research centers (UK Center for Competition Policy). The December 2015 Guidelines are the result of this broad enquiry, and the final version open to comments until the 29th January 2016.

Public-interest considerations abroad

Firstly, the international perspective on public interest considerations in the assessment of mergers might offer an interesting insight to the question.

In Europe, at Community level, the EU Merger Regulation (the “EUMR”) prevents the European Commission to assess non-competition considerations in its analysis of the proposed transaction. Indeed, Article 2 EUMR sets out a test based exclusively on the potential “significant impediment to effective competition”, and the available remedies when the merger might result in such an impediment.

Yet Article 21(4) EUMR allows interventions of Member States to protect three determined types of public interests, namely, public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules. Exceptionally, the European Commission may allow a national measure aimed at protecting a different legitimate interest, although this procedure is rarely used. In any case, the measures taken shall be compatible with the general principles and provisions of European Union law.

A major difference between EU and US competition laws is that the former was meant to serve as a tool to achieve a State union, whereas the latter intervened in an already federated region. This feature arguably plays a significant role in the importance attached to further political aims in the elaboration of the competition framework, although this feature did appear at the first stages of the US.

Two US institutions are today in charge of reviewing the competitive effects of mergers: the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission. Those two institutions act as competition regulators, focusing exclusively on the competition aspects of targeted operations. Other public policy interests, related to specific sectors, might be analysed and taken into account under the responsibility of other US agencies, such as the Federal Communication Commission or the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Such agencies therefore act as sector or industry regulators.

To the extent that the South African Competition Act (1998) (the “Act”) gives a particularly important role to public interest criteria in merger controls, the need for transparency and clarity in the Commission’s assessment mergers is all the more crucial.

south_africaZA: The integration of stakeholders’ comments by the Competition Commission

As for the general observations on the January 2015 guidelines, some constants remain in most of the stakeholders’ commentaries.

This is so in particular as regards evidential requirements, that is, the type and nature of information that would generally be required from the merging parties. Although the Guidelines do provide a relatively detailed and insightful perspective on the Commission’s methodology in assessing mergers, it does not appear that they answer this recurrent request, even in the form of non-exhaustive references to specific documents.

Tembinkosi Bonakele, the South African Competition Commissioner, had the following to say on the topic, when interviewed for AAT’s Meet the Enforcers:

It is important that BRICS countries weigh-in on this important debate. There is a divergence of views amongst many antitrust practitioners on the compatibility of antitrust issues with public interest issues, but everyone accepts that there are public interest issues. The conference will deepen and broaden perspectives on the matter. …

 

Tembinkosi-Bonakele-Profile-PicThe South African competition authorities were established as a package of reforms to transform the unequal South African economy to make it economy inclusive and ensuring that those who participate in it are competitive.

Through engagements such as the BRICS conference we’re able to discuss with our BRICS counterparts how to make our economies, which are similar, more efficient, competitive and inclusive.

A second concern regards the issue of “balancing” competition and other public policy interests. The different nature of those matters, implying various qualitative and quantitative methods of assessment, arguably makes this task “inherently arbitrary”. This is even more so in presence of the broad and general principles addressed by the Act, and that the Guidelines arguably ought to determine and circumscribe. In their revised version, although some further precisions on the process and the determining factors of the Commission’s assessment have been added, some grey areas remain. For instance, some commentators have highlighted the fact that as regards the effect of the merger on a particular industrial sector or region, the Commission “may consider any public interest argument in justification of the substantial negative effect arising as a result of the merger on an industrial sector or region” (Guidelines, §7.2.4.2). It is our view that this wording is all too broad and undetermined to provide useful guidance to practitioners, and ensure a transparent and consistent analysis by the Commission. Not to mention that, as noted by the International Bar Association, the Act limits the Commission’s jurisdiction in evaluating public interest matters in merger reviews. This reference to “any public interest” arguably overlooks the Commission’s limited jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this comment does not seem to have been taken into account in the drafting of the revised version.

The same analysis can be made of the use of such concepts as causality, for example, which is not clearly defined. Furthermore, the Guidelines often provide for the possibility to prove that the effect “results or arises from” the merger, together with the requirement of a causal link, undermining the precise and strict legal requirements that are entailed by the notion of causality (see §7.2.2.1). In other instances, the Commission will merely “consider whether the employment effects are in any way linked to the intentions […] of the acquiring group”, which broadens unreasonably the scope of analysis.

Overall, when considering the clarifications that were called for in various submissions from stakeholders, it appears that in most cases, where the comments have been echoed in the revised Guidelines, the drafting committee has hidden the difficulties rather than going further in its analysis.

For instance, several commentators have expressed their surprise at the principle stated in the January 2015 version of the Guidelines, in the section dedicated to the general approach to assessing public interest provisions, that when the Commission found that the public interest effects were neutral, it would balance the negative and positive effects (§6.6). Indeed, the concept lacked clarity, and does not appear in the revised Guidelines.

Yet, some more substantial comments, in that they pointed to more potentially noxious loopholes, have apparently been disregarded. This is the case of the consequences of the finding of negative competition and public policy effects, a situation where the Commission does not seem to consider the possibility to justify and find remedies. It appears that the result would be a forthright prohibition of the transaction, even if other ways could have existed.

More generally, the perspective on the matters at stake seems to be rather hostile. For instance, in cases where negative public interest effects have been identified, the Commission “may consider imposing remedies or prohibiting the merger depending on the substantiality of the public interest effects”. It may be considered that a more relevant criterion might have been the existence and efficiency of potential remedies, rather than the substantiality of the negative effects at stake. Indeed, although the substantial character of the adverse effects might be a suitable criterion to set the standard of analysis, it does not easily justify to disregard possible remedies, which seems to be the result of the present wording.

Similarly, the Guidelines seem to set the existence of a positive competition finding as a threshold to its analysis. It has been advocated that a more suitable logic would be that the starting point is the absence of any prevention or lessening of competition, which would be more in line with both the Act and the role it affords to public policy concerns, and international best practice.

Conclusion

As noted by the International Competition Network, “the legal framework for competition law merger review should focus exclusively on identifying and preventing or remedying anticompetitive mergers. A merger review law should not be used to pursue other goals”.

Since the introduction of public policy issues in merger control is broadly considered to require cautiousness and measure, it is questionable if the revised Guidelines abide by this general principle of predictability and transparency as regards those matters. Although clear efforts have been made, the public policies at stake do not appear to have been sufficiently identified and articulated with what should remain the fundamental purpose of merger control, that is, the competitive effects of the transaction at stake.

That is particularly so in view of the nature of the Commission, which has no particular expertise in the public policy matters that it his charged to assess. As it is the case in other jurisdictions, such as the UK, it may be useful to create the possibility for the Commission to obtain input from other specialised government agencies or department, although through a transparent and public process which would prevent any diversion of the Act and the Commission’s purposes.

First set of Merger Assessment Guidelines made available by CFTC

Posted on by Editor

Malawi Releases 2015 ‘Merger Assessment Guidelines’

By Michael J. Currie

A number of African jurisdictions have recently published guidelines relating to merger control (which we have reported here on Africanantitrust). During 2015, Malawi’s Competition and Fair Trading Commission (“CFTC”, whose web site appears to be down at the time of publication (http://www.cftc.mw), followed suit and published Merger Assessment Guidelines in 2015 (“Guidelines”) in order to provide some guidance as to how the CFTC will evaluate mergers in terms of the Competition and Fair Trading Act (“Act”).

malawi

Most significantly, the Guidelines have not catered for mandatorily notifiable merger thresholds which is unfortunate as most competition agencies as well as advocacy groups have recognised that financial thresholds is an important requirement to ensure that merger control regimes are not overly burdensome on merging parties.

Furthermore, the COMESA Competition Commission, to which Malawi is a member, published merger notification thresholds in 2015 in line with international best practice. It would be encouraged that the CFTC considers likewise publishing thresholds.

Other than the absence of any thresholds, the Guidelines contain substantively similar content to most merger control guidelines insofar as they set out the broad and general approach that the CFTC will take when evaluating a merger. We have, however, identified the following interesting aspects which emerge from the Guidelines which our readers may want to take note of:

  • The CFTC is entitled to issue a “letter of comfort” to merging parties. A letter of comfort is not formal approval, but allows the merging parties to engage conduct their activities as if approval has been obtained. Therefore, once a letter of comfort has been obtained, the parties may implement the merger. In terms of the Guidelines, a letter of comfort will only be issued once the CTFC is satisfied that any should their investigation reveal any potential competition law concerns, that those concerns will be able to be sufficiently addressed by merger related conditions. It is not clear whether a letter of comfort will be issued before the merger has been made public and therefore it is also unclear what the role of an intervening third party will be once a letter of comfort has been issued.
  • The merger filing fee is 0.05% of the combined turnover or assets of the enterprises’ turnover. The Guidelines do not specify that the turnover must be derived from, in, or into Malawi, although it is likely that this is indeed what was intended.
  • The Act and Guidelines make provision for what is becoming a common feature of developing countries competition laws, namely the introduction of so-called “public interest” provisions in merger control. The Guidelines, however, indicate that the CFTC does not consider these public interest provisions in quite as robust manner as the authorities do other countries including, inter alia, South Africa, Namibia, Zambia and Swaziland. In terms of the Guidelines, any public interest advantages or disadvantages is just one of the factors that the CFTC will consider, together with the traditional merger control factors. It is thus unlikely that a pro-competitive merger would be blocked purely on public interest grounds although this is notionally possible.
  • The Guidelines set out the following factors, combined with figures that are likely to be utilised when evaluating market concentration, which if exceeded, may increase the likelihood of the merger leading to a substantial lessening of competition:
  1. Market Shares: 40% for horizontal mergers and 30% for non-horizontal mergers;
  2. Number of firms in the market;
  3. Concentration Ratios: CR3- 65%; or
  4. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”): HHI between 1000-2000 with delta 259; or HHI above 200 with delta 150. For non-horizontal mergers a merger is unlikely to raise competition concerns if the HHI is below 2000 post-merger.