Tag: food

Real-Life Monopoly in Zimbabwe

Posted on by Editor

Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court hears competition matter between CTC & Innscor

By Jannes van der Merwe & Joshua Eveleigh 

On 3 October 2024, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe (“SCZ”) delivered a judgment in the matter of the Competition Tariff Commission v. Ashram Investments (Private) Limited, and Others, setting aside the order of the Administrative Court (“Court a quo”), which had previously set aside the order of the Competition Tariff Commission (“CTC”) (the appellant before the SCZ).

The decision by the CTC dates back to 2014, when the CTC rejected a merger application where Ashram Investments would obtain control of Profeeds and Produtrade. The CTC rejected the merger on the grounds that Profeeds and Ashram, which is wholly owned by Innscor, had shares in National Foods and Irvines (collectively referred to as “the Respondents”). The proposed merger was likely to give Profeeds and National Foods a monopoly in the stock feeds market. Subsequently, in 2015, the Respondents agreed to merge the entities and obtained 49% of the shares of the target entities, in an attempt to circumvent the regulatory framework.

By doing so, the Respondents obtained an increasing stake in the stock feeds market, where the vertically integrated Respondents operated together. Inscorr, through its subsidiary Irvines[1] and National Foods[2], operates in the stock feed market, spanning their activities over eggs, day old chicks and stock feed manufacturing. Profeeds is also in the market of manufacturing stock feed and poultry feed. [3]

The Respondents were advised to notify the CTC about the implemented mergers, which they did in 2019. The CTC investigated the matter and informed the Respondents, in terms of Section 31(5) of the Competition Act [Chapter 14:28] (“the Act”), that Ashram should divest from Profeeds and that the CTC would impose a penalty for the Respondents’ contraventions of the Act. The Respondents were given an opportunity to make representations regarding the CTC’s broad terms order.

The CTC held that the merger was not in the public interest and was likely to create a monopoly within the market, and that the Respondents failed to notify the CTC of the proposed merger as the Respondents surpassed the notifiable monetary threshold; accordingly, the CTC prohibited the merger. The Respondents appealed to the Court a quo, which upheld the appeal.

The CTC appealed the decision of the Court a quo to the SCZ on the principal grounds that the Court a quo’s findings were grossly unreasonable or irrational, and that it failed to determine that the merger was contrary to the public interest, resulting in a monopoly.

The SCZ opined that the Court a quo erred in allowing the merger. Further, the SCZ held that in terms of the Act, competition must be in the interest of the public and that parties must adhere to the provisions set out in the Act.

The SCZ considered the evidence indicating that, despite the short-term benefits that the Respondents might rely on, the Court a quo failed to consider the long-term effects of the proposed merger and the consequences that arise from a monopolistic enterprise.

The SCZ held that:

“Monopolistic tendencies must be carefully assessed because they may initially appear favorable, but in the long run, they may, when the monopolists get to the point where the market has no other option but to buy their goods, turn around and control even the economy of a country by producing highly priced goods or substandard goods sold at high prices.”

The SCZ relied on the Akzo matter where the COMESA Competition Commission had prohibited a monopolistic merger in Zimbabwe, where it was found that the merger of two strong paint brands would result in there being no effective competition in the market. The SCZ stated that:

“In the present case the court a quo ought to have upheld the prohibition of the merger taking into consideration the merging of Profeeds and National Foods which resulted in the concentration of industrial power in the two biggest companies in the stock feed industry. There are striking similarities between this case and the Akzo case”

This judgment has set a new precedent in Zimbabwe, reaffirming the sound principles set out in the Act and the consequences for parties who wish to jump the gun to circumvent legislation and regulatory authorities.

[1] https://irvinesgroup.com/our-offering/

[2] https://nationalfoods.co.zw/stockfeeds/

[3] https://www.profeeds.co.zw/products

African antitrust authority edges closer to becoming price regulator

Posted on by Editor

The South African Competition Commission warns against unjustifiable price increases of basic foods, particularly edible oil

By Gina Lodolo and Nicola Taljaard

Recent increases in the prices of edible oils have been the focus of news reports. Some retailers have been garnering particular attention for limiting the amount of oil that can be purchased per consumer.

The Chief Economist of the South African Competition Commission (“SACC”), James Hodge, highlighted the price of oil increasing by 42% over a year. This is significant as it reflects 3%-5% of poorer households’ food budget. It has been reported that, although there were already market factors last year affecting the price of oil, the Russia-Ukraine war has certainly exacerbated the situation. Hodge warns, however, that retailers and edible oil companies alike should not unreasonably use the Russia-Ukraine war to raise prices to unjust levels by inflating their price increases more than necessary, thereby seeking to earn ‘excessive profits’.

The SACC will look into the issue more closely. If and when the SACC comes to the conclusion that companies profiteer from their customers, they will act accordingly.

Where costs go up, there may be justifiable increases in prices, however, its recent warning against unjustifiable increases indicates that it will act where prices increase beyond justifiable cost-increase levels. Accordingly, the SACC is considering items that indicate unusual increases, even when taking into consideration the prevailing inflationary environment.

To this effect, Hodge emphasised that the SACC makes use of its ‘monitoring unit’ which tracks price increases by comparing increases in wholesale prices to increases in retail prices.

The work of the monitoring unit is particularly timely in light of its recent Report on Essential Food Pricing Monitoring, which was released on 1 March 2022. The Report clearly communicated the SACC’s intention to start tracking price increases and monitoring dynamics prevalent in the South African food value chain, which made it apparent that the SACC is cognizant of the impact of the significant disruptions and events which have characterized the pandemic years. The SACC has identified this impact to reflect particularly through supply chain disruptions, trade restrictions, border closures and the like.  

Should the SACC suspect that retail price increases have surpassed wholesale price increases, complaints may be initiated by the SACC in terms of Section 49B of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. Thereafter, the complaint will be investigated in terms of Section 49B(3) of the Act to determine whether it will be referred to the Competition Tribunal for adjudication.   

Competition Authority approves KFC Franchise M&A with public-interest conditions

Posted on by Editor

On 7 February 2018 the Competition Authority of Botswana (“The Competition Authority”) approved, with conditions, the acquisition by Bradleymore’s Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Bradleymore’s”), which is incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Botswana (a joint venture between Vivo Energy Africa Holdings Limited and Baobab Khulisani South Africa (Pty) Ltd) of KFC franchises in Botswana, namely VPB Propco (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation), QSR Food Company (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation), Boitumelo Dijo (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) and Greenax (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation).

The Competition Authority determined that the Proposed Transaction is not likely to result in the prevention or substantial lessening of competition, or endanger the continuity of the services offered in the market for quick-service or fast food restaurants.

Section 60 of the Competition Act No 17 of 2009 (“the Competition Act”) allows the Competition Authorities to approve a merger “subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate” and “contain such directions as the Authority considers necessary, reasonable and practicable to remedy, mitigate or prevent any adverse effects of the merger”.

Furthermore, section 61 of the Competition Act provides for either of the parties to a merger to offer an undertaking to the Competition Authority to address any concerns that may arise or be expected to arise during the Competition Authorities consideration of the notified merger and the Competition Authority may make determinations in relation to the merger on the basis of such an undertaking.

Pursuant to the provisions of section 60 and 61 of the Competition Act; the Competition Authority approved the Proposed Transaction with the following conditions:

  1. Bradleymore’s shall source a significant portion of their input requirements locally by continuing to source from existing suppliers that were engaged by VPB, provided they are YUM accredited; as well as consider sourcing from any other YUM accredited suppliers based in Botswana who are currently not supplying KFC;
  2. Bradleymore’s shall ensure that local suppliers are assisted in penetrating or meeting YUM’s standards of accreditation with the aim of sourcing from these suppliers; and
  3. The Parties shall not retrench any employees of the target entities as a result of the acquisition for a period of three (3) years from the implementation date. For the sake of clarity, retrenchments do not include: voluntary separation; voluntary early retirement; unreasonable refusal to be deployed in accordance with the provisions of the labour laws of Botswana; resignations or retirements in the ordinary course of business; terminations in the ordinary course of business; dismissals as a result of misconduct of poor performance.

In order for the Competition Authority to properly monitor compliance with the above conditions, the Competition Authority shall require Bradleymore’s to adhere to the following:

  1. Bradleymore’s shall annually (for a period of three years from the implementation date) submit to the Competition Authority, a detailed report     indicating:-
  2. Any changes to its employment records in the country and the reasons thereof;
  3. A list of its existing and new locally based suppliers (including the type of inputs they supply). This information can be captured in the supply agreements KFC has with such suppliers; and
  4. A copy of the strategy to be employed in building capacity of local suppliers in ensuring they meet YUM accreditation standards. That copy should be availed to the Authority within a period of twelve (12) months from the implementation date. The parties need to demonstrate to the Authority efforts made in identifying potential suppliers in line with their expansion strategy.

Stephany Torres, a competition lawyer, believes such a decision is indicative of the Competition Authorities’ tendency to give public interest considerations a prominent role in merger review.

In terms of section 59(1) of the Competition Act, “[i]n assessing a  proposed merger, the Authority shall first determine whether the merger (a) would be likely to prevent or substantially lessen competition or to restrict trade or the provision of any service or to endanger the continuity of supplies or services; or (b) would be likely to result in any enterprise, including an enterprise which is not involved as a party in the proposed merger, acquiring a dominant position in a market”.

In addition to considering the effect of a merger on competition, in terms of section 59(2) of the Competition Act, the Competition Authority may consider any factor which it considers bears upon the broader public interest, including the extent to which “(a) the proposed merger would be likely to result in a benefit to the public which would outweigh any detriment attributable to a substantial lessening of competition or to the acquisition or strengthening of a dominant position in a market; (b) the merger may improve, or prevent a decline in the production or distribution of goods or the provision of services; (c) the merger may promote technical or economic progress, having regard to Botswana’s development needs; (d) the proposed merger would be likely to affect a particular industrial sector or region; (e) the proposed merger would maintain or promote exports or employment; (f) the merger may advance citizen empowerment initiatives or enhance the competitiveness of citizen-owned small and medium sized enterprises; or (g) the merger may affect the ability of national industries to compete in international markets”.

Torres believes the Competition Authorities’ willingness to push public-interest considerations even in instances such as the proposed transaction, where no competition issues arise, is indicative of them trying to address unemployment issues in Botswana through their merger review.  This willingness to let public interest take centre stage is often seen in countries with new competition law regimes.  She expressed concern that public interest considerations may possibly be the deciding factor when making decisions regarding mergers as these are particularly difficult to quantify or objectively assess.