Ministerial meddling in mergers

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.”
Advertisements

Video: Oxenham on government interventionism in African antitrust

AAT the big picture

AAT’s own editor John Oxenham has been featured in a video discussion of government interventionism in African competition law.  See the talk on Competition Law Observatory (subscription required)

The topic at issue is successfully negotiating the ever-increasing rise of government interventionism in South African and regional merger control.  Not only does interventionism have the potential to undermine the independence of the agencies, but given the increasing trend of government intervention over the past decade, there are concomitant negative effects on merger control in terms of timing and costs.

John Oxenham, editor

John Oxenham, editor

The number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and indeed Africa as a whole, which require mandatory merger notification, has increased dramatically in recent times. South Africa, which has the largest economy in Africa and has had a merger control regime in place for some time now, has made significant contributions to merger jurisprudence in Sub-Saharan Africa already. Accordingly, as many regional countries adopt competition law legislation or specific merger control regimes, they will look increasingly towards South Africa’s Competition Authorities to assist in interpreting and enforcing competition law policies.

In addition with this growth in regimes there are significant challenges for companies (and advisors on their behalf) engaging in multi-jurisdictional mergers principally due to the lack of uniformity across the respective jurisdictions. In particular, when one considers the unique merger review considerations that the South African authorities take into account, it becomes clear that navigating through the field of merger control in South Africa and indeed many African countries requires great skill and care.