a tripartite report - Unctad

a tripartite report - Unctad a tripartite report - Unctad

01.06.2013 Views

ZIMBABWE The Commission in 2006 whilst dealing with the acquisition of Blanket Mine (Private) Limited by Caledonia Holdings (Africa) had to deal with the Commission received and agreed with a written legal opinion from the well known Zimbabwean lawyer, Advocate Adrian P. De Bourbon SC, now practising in South Africa, to the effect that the merger are “of a competitor, supplier, customer or other person”. These words cannot be read simply as though Parliament had used the words “any person”. There can be no doubt that Parliament intended to create a genus (a class of things which have common characteristics) which would be applicable in relation to the concept of merger. The presence of a distinct genus or category calls for the invoking of the application of the rule of interpreting statutes known as the Ejusdem generis rule. Ejusdem generis is a Latin term that means “of the same kind”. The rule holds that where a law lists to them in general, the general statements only cally listed. For example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, “vehicles” would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation. The rule is that where particular words have a common characteristic (i.e. of a class) any general words that follow should be construed as referring generally to that class; no wider construction should be afforded. This therefore means that be interpreted to refer to the class of “competitors, merger, Parliament intended to create a category of persons whose economic activities within Zimbabwe needed to be examined to ensure that the principles relating to fair competition enunciated in the legislation were met. In other words, the need to notify a merger is because the policy behind the legislation is to bring about a situation whereby the Commission can look at the merger between competitors, suppliers, customers and similar persons to determine whether or not the merger will affect the balance of economic activity within Zim- plied by the Commission therefore does not cover conglomerate mergers, unless such mergers have horizontal and/or vertical elements. 183 It also does not include joint ventures resulting in the general provision under Section 2 (c) cannot for such mergers. This shortcoming should also forcement on mergers and acquisitions aspect in Zimbabwe. At inception in 1998, Zimbabwe had a voluntary ed from closing a merger deal and implementing the transaction in advance of having applied for and received merger clearance from the Commission. Today, Section 34 of the ZCA provides for a pre- Competition Amendment Act of 2001) which requires mergers with values at or above a pre- combined annual turnover or assets in Zimbabwe of the merging parties). ZCA also provides for the payment of a merger bined annual turnover or combined value of assets in Zimbabwe of the merging parties). Stakeholders have expressed grievance that the manner with which the fees is calculated, particularly on holding companies, involves assets of unrelated business, hence attracting exorbitant fees. As a result of that the proposed transaction had to be restructured. - - Furthermore, the provision does not clearly provide which among the merging parties (Acquiring or the intended merger transaction. Although a minor and lead to better compliance of the ZCA. Reading of Section 34A of the ZCA together with Statutory Instrument 270 of 2002 particularly Sec- posed merger, in terms of subsection (1) of section 34A of the Act, the Commission shall, as soon as practicable, consider the proposed merger”. These provisions show that the ZCA does not provide for binding deadline for the CTC to assess a merger. ZIMBABWE

184 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE Such an open ended phrase “as soon as practicable” may cause long delays to the notifying parties given that the parties to a merger have a legitimate interest to know how long the merger control procedure will last. This is a major shortcoming petition enforcement on mergers and acquisitions aspect in Zimbabwe. In practice most merger control regimes are based on similar underlying principle of prohibiting the creation or strengthening of a dominant position which would result in either substantial lessening impediment to effective competition in a particular relevant market. The merger test is usually crafted to prohibit those mergers that either create or strengthen a position of dominance in a relevant market. The ZCA has attempted to provide for this test in Section 32 (1) that “… In determining, for the purposes of section thirty-one, whether or not any restrictive practice, merger or monopoly situation is or will be contrary to the public interest …” and Section 32 (4) “the Commission shall regard a merger as contrary to the public interest if the (a) has lessened substantially or is likely to lessen substantially the degree of competition in Zimbabwe or any substantial part of Zimbabwe; or (b) has resulted or is likely to result in a monopoly situation which is or will be contrary to the public interest”. The Section 32 (1) prohibits mergers which are contrary to public interest; Section 32 (4) impliedly (b) which covers both creation and strengthening of dominance in the market. It can be observed that the prohibition is scattered in Sections 2, 32 (1), 32 (4) and 34 of the ZCA, makes the interpretation of the ZCA in so far as prohibited mergers is concerned a complicated undertaking. To make it simple, the prohibition of mergers would directly and categorically target the creation and strengthen of position of dominance/monopoly situation. If it appears that the merger is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in Zimbabwe or any part of Zimbabwe, the Commission then determines whether the merger is likely to result petitive gain which would be greater than and offset the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition that may result or likely result from the merger, and would not likely be obtained if the merger is prevented. The pro-competitive gains include economies of scale or other reason resulting into or are likely to business, trade or industry, necessary for the production, supply or distribution of any commodity or service in Zimbabwe. alty of up to 10 per cent of either or both of the merging parties’ annual turnovers in Zimbabwe. There are no provisions to provide for a procedure to handle a breach of merger condition as it may be ordered under Section 31 (2) (e). Invariably there is no provision to sanction such breach in the ZCA. Section 33 of the ZCA attempts to provide for this, by allowing for the registration of the CTC orders for enforcement purposes and the penalty for failure to comply with such orders. Whilst Section 33 (2) provides that once registered, the order of the CTC has the effect of a civil judgment, the same Section under Subsection (7) goes on to prescribe a criminal penalty for failure to comply with any provision of the order, thus derailing its potency. This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed. Penalties associated with breach of merger pro- provided in Section 34 A (4) are too wide (1 – 10 per cent of either or both of the merging parties) hence giving room for exercise of greater discretion than prudence would demand. The lower limit should have been elevated especially considering the gravity of the offences as provided in Section 34 A (3) (a) and (b). 2.4 Consumer Protection/Unfair Competition Issues Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable

184 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE<br />

Such an open ended phrase “as soon as practicable”<br />

may cause long delays to the notifying parties<br />

given that the parties to a merger have a legitimate<br />

interest to know how long the merger control<br />

procedure will last. This is a major shortcoming<br />

petition<br />

enforcement on mergers and acquisitions<br />

aspect in Zimbabwe.<br />

In practice most merger control regimes are based<br />

on similar underlying principle of prohibiting the<br />

creation or strengthening of a dominant position<br />

which would result in either substantial lessening<br />

<br />

impediment to effective competition in a particular<br />

relevant market. The merger test is usually<br />

crafted to prohibit those mergers that either create<br />

or strengthen a position of dominance in a relevant<br />

market.<br />

The ZCA has attempted to provide for this test<br />

in Section 32 (1) that “… In determining, for the<br />

purposes of section thirty-one, whether or not<br />

any restrictive practice, merger or monopoly situation<br />

is or will be contrary to the public interest …”<br />

and Section 32 (4) “the Commission shall regard<br />

a merger as contrary to the public interest if the<br />

<br />

(a) has lessened substantially or is likely to lessen<br />

substantially the degree of competition<br />

in Zimbabwe or any substantial part of<br />

Zimbabwe; or<br />

(b) has resulted or is likely to result in a monopoly<br />

situation which is or will be contrary to the<br />

public interest”.<br />

The Section 32 (1) prohibits mergers which are<br />

contrary to public interest; Section 32 (4) impliedly<br />

<br />

(b) which covers both creation and strengthening<br />

of dominance in the market. It can be observed<br />

that the prohibition is scattered in Sections 2, 32<br />

(1), 32 (4) and 34 of the ZCA, makes the interpretation<br />

of the ZCA in so far as prohibited mergers<br />

is concerned a complicated undertaking. To make<br />

it simple, the prohibition of mergers would directly<br />

and categorically target the creation and strengthen<br />

of position of dominance/monopoly situation.<br />

If it appears that the merger is likely to substantially<br />

prevent or lessen competition in Zimbabwe<br />

or any part of Zimbabwe, the Commission then<br />

determines whether the merger is likely to result<br />

petitive<br />

gain which would be greater than and offset<br />

the effects of any prevention or lessening of<br />

competition that may result or likely result from<br />

the merger, and would not likely be obtained if the<br />

merger is prevented.<br />

The pro-competitive gains include economies of<br />

scale or other reason resulting into or are likely to<br />

<br />

business, trade or industry, necessary for the production,<br />

supply or distribution of any commodity<br />

or service in Zimbabwe.<br />

alty<br />

of up to 10 per cent of either or both of the<br />

merging parties’ annual turnovers in Zimbabwe.<br />

There are no provisions to provide for a procedure<br />

to handle a breach of merger condition as it<br />

may be ordered under Section 31 (2) (e). Invariably<br />

there is no provision to sanction such breach in the<br />

ZCA. Section 33 of the ZCA attempts to provide for<br />

this, by allowing for the registration of the CTC orders<br />

for enforcement purposes and the penalty for<br />

failure to comply with such orders. Whilst Section<br />

33 (2) provides that once registered, the order of<br />

the CTC has the effect of a civil judgment, the same<br />

Section under Subsection (7) goes on to prescribe<br />

a criminal penalty for failure to comply with any<br />

provision of the order, thus derailing its potency.<br />

This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.<br />

Penalties associated with breach of merger pro-<br />

<br />

provided in Section 34 A (4) are too wide (1 – 10<br />

per cent of either or both of the merging parties)<br />

hence giving room for exercise of greater discretion<br />

than prudence would demand. The lower limit<br />

should have been elevated especially considering<br />

the gravity of the offences as provided in Section<br />

34 A (3) (a) and (b).<br />

2.4 Consumer Protection/Unfair<br />

Competition Issues<br />

Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure<br />

<br />

truthful information in the marketplace. The laws<br />

are designed to prevent businesses that engage in<br />

<br />

advantage over competitors and may provide additional<br />

protection for the weak and those unable

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!