Tag: drinks

Lots of C’s: CCC(C) investigates Coca-Cola Contracts in COMESA

Posted on by Editor

Coca-Cola is suspected of having engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the common market region via unlawfully restrictive distribution agreements — much is at stake, including a chance for the respondent to justify its contract provisions, and for the CCC to provide more detailed objective reasoning for its ultimate decision than it previously did in its 2018 RPM case against the soft drink giant.

By Joshua Eveleigh & Henri Rossouw

On 14 October 2024, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Competition Commission (“CCC”) announced that it will investigate The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) for potentially violating the current Article 16 of the COMESA Competition Regulations (the “Regulations”). The Regulations are due to be amended prior to year’s end.

The alleged conduct relates to supposedly restrictive bottler and distribution agreements considered to affect trade between COMESA Member States, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of the regional competition watchdog, akin to the European Union’s DG COMP enforcing antitrust rules across the EU.

Article 16 prohibits agreements that may affect trade between Member States of COMESA, with the main object of these agreements being to prevent, restrict, distort competition in the Common Market.  The present investigation provides an example of how one of the CCC’s primary objectives is the detection and prevention of any restrictions to trade in and across the Common Market, such as the suspected “absolute territorial restrictions” at issue here.  This is notably different from a prior run-in between Coca-Cola and the CCC back in 2017-2018: the CCC’s first soft-drink salvo dealt with so-called “Resale Price Maintenance” (“RPM”) in Coke’s distribution agreements. RPM is a generally frowned-upon practice in antitrust law globally. During that case, the then-still fledgling agency had issued a curt decision, resolving the case without fines but with an injunction against the practice and a mandatory Coke compliance programme.

This new matter arises out of entirely different legal issues and with a distinct factual background. Moreover, it is now being investigated by a notably matured and dramatically advanced enforcement agency compared to the 2018 case. Says Andreas Stargard, a Primerio attorney practising before the CCC:

“The Commission is doing what COMESA was designed for — a ‘territorial-restriction’ prosecution is nothing new for a regionally-integrated community. It lies at the heart of the concept of a unified, free market area. Territorial restrictions within such an area an inimical to the entire concept of COMESA. Just look at the EU: its antitrust rules have given the European Commission a similar mandate for decades, enforcing prohibitions against sellers’ territorial limitations that impinge on the free distribution and sale of their goods across the EU. Here, in the current COMESA investigation, it appears that we are notably dealing with restrictive conduct that may be justified by the parties in the end, as opposed to a pure prohibition ‘by object’, such as a cartel agreement. So if Article 16(1)-(4) applies, a prohibition with ‘rule-of-reason’ caveats, Coca-Cola may provide arguments as to why and how the restrictive agreements benefit end-consumers.”

Interestingly, the CCC previously assessed the distribution agreements between Anheuser-Busch InBev (“ABI”) and its third-party distributors and found that the distribution agreements contained clauses that restricted distributors from selling outside of their allocated territories, infringing upon the principle of “absolute territorial protection”. Accordingly, ABI remedied the infringing provisions. “The difference there, however, was that ABI had affirmatively and preemptively applied to the CCC for an authorization under Art. 20 — it was not the subject of an investigation after the fact, as is the case with Coca-Cola,” says attorney Stargard.

“Moreover, once the case is resolved, I am curious to see whether the CCC will take into account the prior compliance programme mandate from the 2018 case against Coca-Cola. It will be interesting to read whether or not the Commission refers to this condition of the prior non-fining resolution against Coke’s RPM conduct, and if so, where the failure point was? Was the programme either inefficient, entirely scrapped, or how did it otherwise fail to avoid further violative conduct on the part of the respondent…? We will have to wait and see, but other global enforcers, such as the DOJ, have certainly used the existence or non-existence of an effective compliance programme in their ultimate fining decisions to date.”

Regardless of outcome, it will also be interesting to learn how the CCC approaches the topic of exclusive distribution agreements across the Common Market. In this regard, it is widely accepted that exclusive agreements are likely to give rise to a range of efficiencies that may be passed down to customers and end-consumers, which Coca-Cola will, of course, need to establish by objective economic evidence if it seeks to justify its contracts vis-à-vis the CCC.

The CCC has been known to be deliberate and fair in its proceedings, especially in recent years of maturity and advancements in its team strength and econometric evaluation capabilities. Mr. Stargard observes that “[e]xamples of this nuanced approach and the due process being granted to parties in distribution cases include the most recent CAF soccer cases (see, e.g., here), in which the CCC spent extensive time and clarifying documentation on why certain, but not all, practices of the affected parties were harmful to consumer welfare in the Common Market.” That said, if the CCC were to adopt an overly protective stance here, however, it may have a concomitant effect on the consumer welfare and will have significant consequences for multinationals distributing into Africa.

The case is still in its investigatory phase, and thus all interested stakeholders are invited to submit representations by 14 November 2024 and can enquire further from Mr. Boniface Makongo (Director Competition Division) at +265 (0) 111 772 466 or at bmakongo@comesacompetition.org.

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.”

Beer cartels: First fine sought in Mauritius leniency matter

Posted on by Editor
mauritius

madagascar

Precedential leniency case yields initial fine

The Competition Commission of Mauritius (“the Commission”) has recommended fines of approximately €487,000 and €158,000 be imposed on Phoenix Beverages Ltd (PLB) and Stag Beverages, respectively, for their involvement in a cartel.

This is the country’s first cartel investigation to be made public, and the first time a party has used its leniency programme.

Phoenix and Stag have been accused by the Commission of colluding to divide the Mauritian and Madagascan beer markets between the two manufactures. The alleged agreement between the parties involved Stag leaving the Mauritian market, allowing Phoenix to dominate the country’s beer market.

Phoenix applied for leniency prior to the 24 May 2014 deadline and consequently received reduced fine.  Both companies assisted the Commission with its investigation.

The Executive Director of the CCM, Mrs. Kiran Meetarbhan, said:

“Many jurisdictions have developed programs that offer leniency because of the many benefits that flow from having them. In line with international best practices, the CCM has not lagged behind in developing a leniency program that has been reinforced so as to grant full amnesty to the first reporting firm in addition to offering judicial security to informants.

This investigation triggered our first leniency application since the CCM’s inception. This is also the first cartel investigation which I have launched in my capacity as Executive Director for which I have recommended financial penalties in addition to other measures to address competition concerns.

I wish to commend the main parties’ approach in this investigation which has revealed a true spirit of cooperation.  Leniency programs create powerful incentives to enterprises to race to self-report at an early stage. Evidence can thus be obtained more quickly, and at a lower direct cost, compared to other methods of investigation, leading to prompt and efficient resolution of cases. This case provides a perfect example of the manner in which a leniency application coupled with the active cooperation of the main parties have led to the successful completion of the investigation within a remarkable three months’ timeline.

The fine[] recommended on Phoenix Beverages Ltd takes into account its leniency application, absent which, the fines would have been higher. Phoenix Beverages Ltd took advantage of the amnesty provisions, which lapsed on 24th May 2014. We cannot stress enough the importance of the leniency programme with regards to collusive agreements.

Several factors help to free an economy from the malicious effects of a collusive agreement including a strong political support towards fighting cartels and a resilient commitment to equip the competition agency with the appropriate legislative framework and adequate financial resources. The Government has signified its intention to further empower the Competition Commission in order to better fight cartels. This was announced by the Prime Minister in his address to the Nation this year.”