Tag: retail

To intervene or not to intervene: a twisted tale in Pepkor’s proposed acquisition of Shoprite’s furniture business

Posted on by Editor

By Michael-James Currie and Joshua Eveleigh

Participation by third parties in merger control proceedings has long been a fundamental aspect of South Africa’s merger control regime. In this regard, section 53(c)(v) of the Competition Act, 89 of 1998 (“Act”) broadly permits that that any person whom the Tribunal has recognized as a “participant” in a merger hearing, may “participate” in that hearing.

The scope of section 53(c)(v), however, has recently been ventilated before the Tribunal, Competition Appeal Court (“CAC”) and the Constitutional Court (i.e., South Africa’s top court) in respect of Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd’s (“Lewis”) application to intervene in the proposed merger between Pepkor Holdings Limited (“Pepkor”) and Shoprite Holdings Limited (“Shoprite”) (collectively, the “Merging Parties”)(“Proposed Transaction”).

Background

In brief, the Proposed Transaction relates to Pepkor’s acquisition of the furniture business of Shoprite, consisting of OK Furniture and House & Home retail brands, which will subsequently be incorporated into Pepkor’s existing furniture, bedding and plugged goods retail business.

As part of its investigations, the South African Competition Commission (“SACC”) found that the Proposed Transaction would give rise to horizontal overlaps in the supply of:

  • Furniture products; and
  • Bed sets and mattresses.

The SACC also received concerns about the potential effects of the Proposed Transaction from different market participants, including Lewis. Nevertheless, the SACC found that there would continue to be several alternatives within the product markets which would serve as a competitive constraint against the merged entity post-implementation. It was on this basis that the SACC concluded that the Proposed Transaction would not give rise to a substantial lessening or prevention of competition (“SLC”) and recommended that the Proposed Transaction be approved, subject to public interest commitments.

Lewis’s basis for intervening

During the Tribunal’s consideration of the Proposed Transaction, Lewis brought its application to intervene in the Proposed Transaction on the basis that:

  • Shoprite will be removed as a key competitive constraint on Pepkor and, therefore, resulting in a 3-to-2 merger at the national level in relation to the retail of household furniture; and
  • that the Proposed Transaction will likely result in increased provided for low-to-middle-income consumers.

Lewis also submitted that the SACC did not properly consider the effects that the Proposed Transaction would have on different local geographic markets and, concomitantly, whether any SLC would arise within those specific catchment areas.

Accordingly, Lewis argued that in its capacity as the only national furniture retail chain that competes with both Pepkor and Shoprite on a national basis, it has important knowledge and insights into the furniture retail industry which would assist the Tribunal in assessing the Proposed Transaction.

Tribunal’s reasons for permitting Lewis’s intervention

Lewis’s application to intervene was brought in terms of section 53(c)(v) of the Act, read with rule 46 of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal Rules”).

Tribunal Rule 46(1) provides that any person who has a “material interest” in the relevant matter may apply to intervene in the Tribunal proceedings.

Importantly, the Tribunal nevertheless stated that an intervening party is not entitled to rights that would “displace or supplant” the role of the SACC. Rather, the Tribunal must assess whether the intervening party would be able to assist it in understanding whether the Proposed Transaction gives rise to an SLC or adverse public interest effects.

In this regard, the Tribunal summarized the three-fold test required for a successful intervention application. In this regard, the Tribunal must consider whether the information to be provided by the proposed intervenor:

  • relates to matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction;
  • is not already available to the Tribunal; and
  • whether the potential benefits of such assistance outweigh any adverse effects the intervention might have on the speed and resolution of the proceedings.

The Tribunal must also inquire as to whether the intervenor will provide the Tribunal with meaningful assistance for its purposes of assessing the competition and public interest effects of the particular transaction.

In assessing Lewis’s application, the Tribunal found that there are significant and material disputes of fact that have to be ventilated for the Tribunal to understand the relevant market dynamics and that Lewis could assist the Tribunal in this regard.

Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted Lewis as an intervening party on the basis that it demonstrated its ability to provide “significant and material evidence” on the:

  • nature of competition in the market(s);
  • closeness of competition, and
  • characterisation of regional or localised markets.

The Tribunal did, however, limit the scope of Lewis’s intervention rights on the relevant market definitions and whether the Proposed Transaction is likely to lead to an SLC. Lewis was also admitted to assist the Tribunal in respect of potential remedies and/or the imposition of any conditions that might be imposed.

The CAC’s assessment of merger intervention rights

While there were several aspects of the Merging Parties appeal to the CAC, one of the substantive concerns raised was the Tribunal’s supposed outsourcing of the SACC’s functions in merger hearings to Lewis, as an intervenor. This is particularly because the Tribunal granted Lewis with broad powers including: rights to participate in all prehearing conferences; full discovery rights; the right to require the Tribunal to summon people and documents; full participation rights in any and all interlocutory proceedings; the right to adduce evidence and present argument and the right to cross examine any witnesses; the right for Lewis’s legal and economic advisors to access the merger record and all documents filed.

Considering the extensive rights afforded to Lewis, the CAC stated that the scope of rights afforded to Lewis would “retard an expeditious hearing”. The CAC also went on to state that:

“In the light thereof and in the required balancing exercise, this Court must surely take account of these factors together with the possible vested interest of a competitor in the merger proceedings to slow matters down in order to subvert the merger. It must then be satisfied that the contribution which a respondent can bring to the proceedings meets the test laid down by this Court. In particular, that the respondent has shown that it has unique knowledge of the market and can provide evidence in relation to the overall enquiry as to whether a merger should be permitted in order to justify admission.” (own emphasis)

On the latter inquiry, and after a review of Lewis’s affidavits, the CAC found that Lewis had not demonstrated that it was in possession of evidence which would not otherwise be available to the Tribunal after requiring further assistance from the SACC and would assist the Tribunal in understanding the effects of the Proposed Transaction. 

Accordingly, the CAC found that the Tribunal’s reasons for admitting Lewis as an intervenor:

  • did not properly consider to what extent Lewis was likely to assist the Tribunal in circumstances where the information and evidence it was intending to provide could not have been obtained elsewhere; and
  • failed to find a balance between an order which did not undermine the objective of an expeditious resolution of the matter, the interests of the Merging Parties to an expeditious hearing as compared to the value of Lewis’s contribution to the Tribunal.

Importantly, the CAC also confirmed that orders by the Tribunal which relate to applications for intervention are ‘final’ in nature and are subject to appeal.

In sum, the CAC set aside the Tribunal’s order and dismissed Lewis’s application to intervene, stating that:

“It must be emphasised that the approach adopted in this judgment does not represent the end of the road for the respondent. The Tribunal possesses inquisitorial powers. It is more than entitled to summon the respondent to appear before it to provide it with any information and argument relevant to this proposed merger. It also has the power in terms of its inquisitorial powers to require the [SACC] to gather and present additional evidence in relation to the topics which it identified; being market shares, the effects of the merger on specified identified local markets and the role of online sales and economic surveys, demand side analyses of consumer preference. These are matters which clearly represent the kind of investigations that should be undertaken by the [SACC]. It has been alerted to the type of investigations which the Tribunal requires in the reasons provided by the Tribunal. To the extent that the [SACC] or the Tribunal considers that the respondent could be of assistance in this regard it could require the respondent to provide it with further evidence which would be of assistance.”

Further and final appeal to the Constitutional Court

Following the CAC’s order, Lewis approached the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis.

The central tenet of Lewis’s appeal to the Constitutional Court is that the CAC had effectively imposed a new and burdensome threshold for intervention applications for purposes of section 53 of the Act. In brief, Lewis submits that the CAC required that the potential intervenor’s material interest and ability to assist the Tribunal in a proposed transaction was insufficient and that the intervenor must rather demonstrate that its submissions would be “unique” and “could not be obtained elsewhere”. 

Lewis also raised the following key arguments in its appeal to the Constitutional Court:

  • that the CAC’s judgment violated meaningful procedural fairness and constitutional rights; and
  • that the CAC improperly overrode the Tribunal’s specialist discretion, breaching institutional deference.

The Constitutional Court upheld Lewis’s appeal, permitting Lewis to intervene in the Tribunal proceedings, however, its reasons for doing so have not been published at the time of publishing of this article.

Conclusions and Insights

The protracted saga in Lewis’s application to intervene in the Proposed Transaction has raised much debate as to whether intervention by third parties unduly frustrates the finalization of merger hearings in South Africa. It would make little sense, however, for market participants, with direct and substantial knowledge of the potential effects of a particular transaction, from being precluded from participating in merger hearings before the Tribunal. In this regard, ‘rubber stamping’ a contested merger without affording interested parties to ventilate potential competition and/or public interest concerns before the Tribunal may have the consequence of increasing prices, lowering output and quality, foreclosing competitors – all of which the SACC would be hard placed to remediate post-implementation of the merger.

Rather, it should be incumbent on the Tribunal to find a balance between allowing third parties to provide limited assistance to it, on specific disputes of fact, while ensuring that merger hearings do not become extensively protracted.

Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry: Call for Comments

Posted on by Editor

By Jemma Muller & Gina Lodolo / edits by Charl van der Merwe

The South African Competition Commission (SACC) indicated its intent to formally initiate a market inquiry in the Online Intermediation Platforms Market (Inquiry), in terms of section 43B(1)(a) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended) (Competition Act).

In terms of the amended Competition Act, the SACC has the power to conduct a market inquiry at any time, “if it has reason to believe that any feature or combination of features of a market or any goods or services impedes, distorts or restricts competition within that market.

The SACC published its draft Terms of Reference (ToR), allowing members of the public until 12 March 2021 to submit their comments on the scope of the Inquiry.

The ToR envisage a limited scope of assessment, to include only online intermediation services and, in particular, eCommerce marketplaces; online classifieds; travel and accommodation aggregators; short term accommodation intermediation; food delivery; app stores (with the notable exclusion of ‘fintech’).

The Inquiry will be focused on both competition and public interest factors and will aim to consider:

  • market features that may hinder competition amongst the platforms themselves;
  • market features that give rise to discriminatory or exploitative treatment of business users; and
  • market features that may negatively impact on the participation of SMEs and/or HDI owned firms

According to the SACC in the ToR, these platforms have been flagged as they have the potential to self-preference and distort markets through algorithms, which is harmful to businesses who rely on these platforms to reach consumers.

The Inquiry follows shortly on the back of the SACC’s “Competition in the Digital Economy” report (Report), which was published for public comment in the final quarter of 2020. In the Report, the SACC specifically identified market inquiries are an effective tool to address market barriers (especially for Small Medium Enterprises (SME) and historically disadvantaged individuals (HDP)) and to address market feature concerns which may lead to reduced competition.

Allied to this, the ToR goes on to state, in support of the Inquiry, that the use of intermediation services can provide a manner of entry into a market for SMEs/ HDPs, but due to the potential distortions of the market, may also discriminate against them. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic online business opportunities are vital in ensuring economic recovery as well as inclusive growth of SMEs and HDPs.

The Inquiry will be the first inquiry in terms of the Competition Act as amended. In this regard, the amended Competition Act empowers the SACC to “take action to remedy, mitigate or prevent the adverse effect on competition”.  This includes imposing structural or behavioural remedies.

It is also notable that the standard of assessment for market inquiries is a lower standard that that required in complaint proceedings. The SACC need only find that certain elements of the market may have “adverse effect on competition” (as opposed a substantial lessening of competition).

In light of these facts, firms in the relevant market cannot afford to remain passive participants in market inquiries and, instead, must consider and respond to the inquiry, as a respondent.

Healthy foods & price-gouging during Pandemic?

Posted on by Editor

High ginger, garlic and lemon prices have left a sour taste in mouths of South Africans

By Gina Lodolo and Jemma Muller

The exorbitant and rapid increase in prices of ginger, garlic and lemon, that which spans up to 300%, has been the source of much public outcry and regulatory concern over the past few months. The question remains whether the price increases by massive retailers can be justified or whether they should be considered as excessive?

The Consumer and Customer Protection and the National Disaster Regulations and Directions (the “Regulations”), which came into effect in March 2020, were put in place to consider inter alia when a price is excessive.  They empower the South African Competition Commission (“SACC”) and National Consumer Commission (“NCC”) to investigate and prosecute cases of price-gouging.  Contraventions may result in penalties of up to ZAR 1 million or 10% of annual turnover. According to the NCC, price gouging is defined as “an unfair or unreasonable price increase that does not correspond to or is not equivalent to the increase in the cost of providing that good or service.”

The NCC has launched an investigation under the Consumer Protection Act into potential contraventions of the COVID-19 Regulations against major retailers such as Woolworths, Pick ‘n Pay, Shoprite, Spar, Food Lovers market, Cambridge Foods and Boxers Superstores. According to the Regulations, and in terms of section 120(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, a price increase of a goods, including inter alia “basic food and consumer items”, which does not correspond to the increase in cost of supplying such goods, or increases in the net margin or mark-up on the good(s) which exceeds the average margin or mark-up on the said good in the three month period before 1 March 2020 is “unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable and unjust and a supplier is prohibited from effecting such a price increase”.

The preferred tools of the COVID-19 Regulations relating to excessive pricing seem to be predominantly similar to competition policy and its associated institutions. Upon assessing an increase in pricing to determine whether the increase is excessive, the test would be whether the prices were increased due to cost-based increases (such as reduced supply due to an increase in import costs as the domestic currency get weaker) as opposed to price increases only due to a demand increase (such as more consumers buying ginger as an immune booster during the COVID-19 pandemic). When assessing exploitative conduct, it is more likely to establish that there has been an abuse of dominance when a firm is dominant or enjoys great market power.

It has appeared that the trend in the increase of ginger and garlic retail prices is that the allegedly exploitative conduct no longer originates from only one dominant player as such (eg. only Spar) but rather affects shops in the whole of South Africa. The price increases have sparked outrage with consumers who are driving shop-to-shop in an attempt to purchase ginger or garlic at a lower, or somewhat ‘standard’ pre-COVID-19, price.

As stated above, increasing prices will be seen as excessive when the increase is due only to an increase in demand. Retailers have claimed that the increase is not only because of rising demand but also due to an actual decrease in the product supply.  It is therefore pertinent to determine the extent to which the supply has been reduced in relation to the increased demand. This would require a proportionality balance, as shops would have to prove to the competition authorities that the increase of pricing is only due to the decrease in supply. Extortionary pricing above and beyond that would demonstrate an increase of pricing due to the increase of demand, and as such would fall foul of the  Competition Act and the Regulations cited above.

The rising prices in garlic and ginger have been on the SACC’s radar since July 2020, when it concluded a consent agreement with Food Lovers Holdings whereby the retailer agreed to immediately halt excessively pricing its ginger products at one of its stores. Notwithstanding this fact, the subsequent regulation and enforcement of ginger and garlic prices by the SACC under Regulations has become somewhat tricky due to the fact that the products are not considered to be essential products under the COVID-19 Regulations.

The SACC previously found that the increases in prices were largely attributed to the rise in costs experienced by retailers and they found no evidence of price gouging targeted at taking advantage of the constrained mobility of consumers or shortages during the pandemic. What the SACC found to be concerning, however, were the high pre-disaster margins on products such as ginger and garlic, which have largely been maintained throughout the pandemic by retailers raising their prices for the goods as the costs were increasing. Accordingly, as mentioned above, although the SACC did not find evidence of price gouging, it did find possible contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such, referred the potential contraventions to the NCC to investigate further.

A spokesperson for the SACC, Siyabulela Makunga has stated the following:

“We also appreciate the changes in demand for garlic and ginger, but it is our view the price of ginger and garlic have [sic] increased astronomically at retailers. We don’t think that the increased demand in ginger justified the price of up to R400 a kilogram…”

John Oxenham, an R.S.A. competition lawyer with Primerio Ltd., notes that “the prosecution of the matter demonstrates the respective authorities’ commitment to priority sectors and an unbridled effort to root out any form of price-gouging.”

To conclude, market power of the implicated retailors has likely been increased due to the reduced availability of substitutes for customers as a majority of retailers have introduced a dramatic price increase. The investigation launched by the NCC is, however, a step in the right direction to protect consumers who have been left with very limited choices in the widespread steep increase in price of ginger and garlic.

MergerMania update: COMESA CCC clears 5 notified mergers

Posted on by andreasstargard

COMESA old flag color

COMESA CCC clears 5 notified mergers

At their July 29, 2015 meeting, COMESA Competition Commissioners Chikankheni, Langa, and Okilangole rendered decisions in five merger cases notified earlier in the spring.  The affected sectors are: Packaging (Nampak), Retail (Steinhoff), Academic Publishing (Springer Verlag), Telecom Towers (Eaton Towers), and Non-Alcoholic Beverages (Coca-Cola).

Ethos/Nampak MER/03/01/2015 SOM/8/2015 Decision/10/2015  29/07/2015
Steinhoff/Pepkor MER/03/02/2015 SOM/7/2015 Decision/9/2015  29/07/2015
Holtzbrinck PG/ Springer Science MER/04/06/2015 SOM/6/2015 Decision/8/2015  29/07/2015
Eaton Towers/ Kenya, Malawi, Uganda Towers MER/04/05/2015 SOM/5/2015 Decision/7/2015 29/07/2015
Coca-Cola BAL/ Coca-Cola SABCO MER/04/07/2015 SOM/4/2015 Decision/6/2015 29/07/2015

Our statistics (while discrepant with those identified by COMESA head of mergers Mr. Willard Mwemba) show the following numbers for COMESA notifications to date:

COMESA MergerMania July 2015
Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices

COMESA foreshadows first substantive sector study, potential cartel enforcement

Posted on by Editor

Retail antitrust: “mushrooming” shopping malls vs. SMEs, and possible cartel follow-on enforcement on the horizon for CCC

As reported in the Swazi Observer and other news outlets, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) recently expressed an interest in investigating the effect that larger shopping malls have had on competition in the common market’s retail sector.

This is one of the first non-M&A investigations undertaken by the CCC, according to a review of public sources.  While observers in the competition-law community have witnessed several merger notifications (and clearances) under COMESA jurisdiction, there has been no conduct enforcement by the young CCC to speak of.  Indeed, CCC executive director George Lipimile stated at a conference in November 2014: “Since we commenced operations in January, 2013 the most active provisions of the Regulations has been the merger control provisions.”  Andreas Stargard, an attorney with the boutique Africa consultancy Pr1merio, notes:

“Looking at the relative absence of enforcement against non-merger conduct (such as monopolisation, unilateral exclusionary practices, cartels, information exchanges among competitors or other conduct investigations), this new ‘shopping mall sectoral inquiry‘ may thus mark the first time the CCC has become active in the non-merger arena — a development worth following closely.  Moreover, the head of the CCC also announced future enforcement action against cartels, albeit only those previously uncovered in other jurisdictions such as South Africa, it appears from his prepared remarks.”

The CCC’s interest in the mall sector was revealed during one of the agency’s “regional sensitisation workshops” for business journalists (AAT previously reported on one of them here).  At the event, Lipimile is quoted as follows:

“The little shops in the locations seem to be slowly disappearing because everybody is going into shopping malls. And these shopping malls and the shops in them are mostly owned by foreigners.”

The investigation will take a sampling from the economies of several of the 19 COMESA member states and attempt to determine whether the “mushrooming” growth of shopping malls negatively affects local small and medium enterprises in the whole common market.

Rajeev Hasnah, a Pr1merio consultant, former Commissioner of the CCC and previously Chief Economist & Deputy Executive Director of the Competition Commission of Mauritius, commented that,

“Conducting market studies is one of the functions of the CCC and it is indeed commendable that the institution would contemplate on conducting such a study in the development of shopping malls across the COMESA region.  I believe that this will then enable the institution to correctly identify and appreciate the competition dynamics in the operations of shopping malls and the impact they have on the economy in general.  The study should also identify whether there are areas of concerns where the CCC could initiate investigations to enable competition to flourish to the benefit of businesses, consumers and the economy in general.  We look forward to the undertaking of such a study and its findings.”

AAT agrees with this view and welcomes the notion of the CCC commencing substantive non-merger investigations.  We observe, however, that the initial reported statements on the part of the CCC tend to show that there is the potential for dangerous local protectionist motives to enter into the legal competition analysis.  As Mr. Lipimile stated at the conference:

“Though [the building of malls] might be seen as a good thing, it may negatively impact on our local entrepreneurship and might lead to poverty. Before shopping malls were built, local entrepreneurs realised sales from their products.  Now malls are taking over. … [A] strong competition policy can be an effective tool to promote social inclusion and reduce inequalities as it tends to open up more affordable options for consumers, acting as an automatic stabiliser for prices”

That said, Mr. Lipimile also stated at the same event, quite astutely, that a “solid competition framework provides a catalyst to increase productivity as it generates the right incentives to attract the most efficient firms.”  In the rational view of antitrust law & economics, if — after an objective review such as the study announced by the CCC — the “most efficient” firm happens to be a larger shopping mall that does not otherwise foreclose equally effective competition, then the Darwinian survival of the fittest in a market economy must not be impeded by regulatory intervention.

George Lipimile, CEO, COMESA Competition Commission
George Lipimile, CEO, COMESA Competition Commission

Mr. Lipimile himself seemed to agree in November 2014, when he said that the 19-member COMESA jurisdiction must have regard to “its trading partners [which] go beyond the Common Market hence, it requires consensus building and a balancing act.”  At this time, “when regional integration is occupying the centre stage as one of the key economic strategies and a rallying point for the development of the African continent,” domestic protectionist strategies have no place in antitrust & competition law.  Said Mr. Lipimile: “[R]egional integration can only be realized by supporting a strong competition culture in the Common Market,” which would not support a more reactionary, closed tactic of a regulatory propping-up of “domestic champions” versus more efficient foreign competition.  As the CCC head recognised, “[t]he purpose of competition law is to facilitate competitive markets, so as to promote economic efficiency, thereby generate lower prices, increase choice and economic growth and thus enhance the welfare of the general community.”