a tripartite report - Unctad

a tripartite report - Unctad a tripartite report - Unctad

01.06.2013 Views

PREFACE the market price but constrained by the rivalry of the price unilaterally only constrained by demand. Markets change over time. Some that formerly were monopolies are now competitive, while others that once were competitive are now monopo- in fast growing economies. Markets in general become less concentrated because of entry of new fail. Many fast growing economies have demon- when induced by deregulating licensing regimes and general liberalization of entry and expansion conditions in State-reserved sectors 4 . This is a wel- not because of their own competitive efforts but because of a merger. While gaining market shares by offering better products and lowering prices acquiring market shares by buying out competitors is much easier to do. As for their market effects, while in most circumstances mergers favour growth in the economy, leading to stronger and - market power and simply lead to higher prices for The special characteristic of merger policy is that it requires a judgment concerning the impact of a merger on competition before the merger has occurred. This is why in most jurisdictions mergers - not be over inclusive and should be strictly limited to transactions that have a local nexus. Voluntary prises, weakens the competition authority especially on politically sensitive mergers. The three jurisdictions under review have all estab- control. This is very useful. However for it to function properly a merger should have a clear and Indeed in the three jurisdictions under review the 15 triggering event for a merger to take place, the underlying hypothesis being that through the acquisition of control a separate legal entity would lose its commercial independence. A merger may take place even if separate legal entities may well continue to exist. Furthermore control can be exercised also jointly when some shareholders are tied by an agreement to run the company together. On the other hand there is no acquisition of control if there are shifting majorities. Without acquisition of control there is no structural change on the markets concerned and hence no concentration of assets or turnover. Not all mergers need to be examined, just those that would have the potential to be anticompeti- turnover is in place In the United Republic of Tan- by the Authority itself, which is quite important to threshold amounts set by the Fair Competition Commission. The gazetted threshold is of Tanzanian Shillings 800 million. Although the United Republic of Tanzania has a immunity to a person who acts unintentionally in - The obligation to notify should be full without accordingly or the unintentionally exception be interpreted so rigorously that it is never applied. mergers, with combined market shares below 35 per cent, while the merger guidelines inform merger review process. Restrictive mergers can be nonetheless authorized if there is an overriding public interest. The law lists what these overriding public interests are and most would fall under normal competition considerations in most defences. Only the protection of the environment appears as a pure public interest item, but it is vironment can be affected by a merger. It seems therefore that the public interest objectives to be COMPARATIVE ASSESMENT

16 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE considered in the United Republic of Tanzania entail only a competition type assessment. Also in Zambia and in Zimbabwe all mergers thresholds for Zambia and Zimbabwe have a very similar structure. In Zambia the threshold is de- ever is higher, in Zambia of the merging parties, bined annual turnover or assets in Zimbabwe of A combined turnover threshold like the one adopted in Zambia and in Zimbabwe is disad- notify also the smallest transactions and even ac- of such transactions on the domestic economy is Each jurisdiction should limit the number of merg- an increase in market power and that are likely to create anticompetitive effects on their markets. This suggests that what matters are threshold triggers tion concerned of the relevant business entities to be able to encompass both mergers and acquisi- two combined triggers: (a) combined turnover or assets of all parties to the concentration exceed- minimum turnover or assets in the jurisdiction. This is the direction all three jurisdictions should move. Zambia and Zimbabwe differ with respect to the 90 days, extendable by other 30. However simpler transactions could be cleared in a much quicker way. If the law is not changed along the lines suggested by the country report (a two phases procedure), the Authority may decide to clear simpler transactions quicker at its own initiative. Even if view, nothing impedes the Authority to voluntarily choose a shorter one for some transactions. In Zimbabwe the law does not provide a term for the investigation to end, once the merger is as practicable” may cause long delays for a decision. Although changes in the law would clearly be preferable to eliminate this challenge, the Authority should announce unilaterally stricter terms that it would constrain itself to follow. Or prepare operation guidelines as a secondary legislation to give them a force of law. As for the standard for merger control, also Zambia and Zimbabwe adopt a public interest test. In Zimbabwe, once the Authority concludes that a merger substantially lessens competition, it then determines whether the merger is likely to result in any 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 likely to result trade or industry, necessary for the production, supply or distribution of any commodity or service in Zimbabwe. What this implies is that in Zimbabwe like in the United Republic of Tanzania the public clearly within the best practice in merger control. wider than that provided in the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe. In Zambia the law, petitive merger to be authorized for a number of very general reasons, leading to a very long list of exceptions. In particular, the Authority “may, in considering a proposed merger, take into account any factor which bears upon the public interest in the proposed merger, including (a) the extent to which the proposed merger is would outweigh any detriment attributable to a substantial lessening of competition; (b) the extent to which the proposed merger would, or is likely to, promote technical or economic progress and the transfer to skills, or otherwise improve the production or distribution of goods or the provision of services in Zambia;

PREFACE<br />

the market price but constrained by the rivalry of<br />

<br />

the price unilaterally only constrained by demand.<br />

Markets change over time. Some that formerly<br />

were monopolies are now competitive, while others<br />

that once were competitive are now monopo-<br />

<br />

in fast growing economies. Markets in general become<br />

less concentrated because of entry of new<br />

<br />

<br />

fail. Many fast growing economies have demon-<br />

<br />

when induced by deregulating licensing regimes<br />

and general liberalization of entry and expansion<br />

conditions in State-reserved sectors 4 . This is a wel-<br />

<br />

not because of their own competitive efforts but<br />

because of a merger. While gaining market shares<br />

by offering better products and lowering prices<br />

<br />

acquiring market shares by buying out competitors<br />

is much easier to do. As for their market effects,<br />

while in most circumstances mergers favour<br />

growth in the economy, leading to stronger and<br />

-<br />

<br />

market power and simply lead to higher prices for<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

The special characteristic of merger policy is that<br />

it requires a judgment concerning the impact of<br />

a merger on competition before the merger has<br />

occurred. This is why in most jurisdictions mergers<br />

-<br />

<br />

not be over inclusive and should be strictly limited<br />

to transactions that have a local nexus. Voluntary<br />

prises,<br />

weakens the competition authority especially<br />

on politically sensitive mergers.<br />

The three jurisdictions under review have all estab-<br />

<br />

control. This is very useful. However for it to function<br />

properly a merger should have a clear and<br />

<br />

Indeed in the three jurisdictions under review the<br />

<br />

15<br />

triggering event for a merger to take place, the<br />

underlying hypothesis being that through the acquisition<br />

of control a separate legal entity would<br />

lose its commercial independence. A merger may<br />

take place even if separate legal entities may well<br />

continue to exist. Furthermore control can be exercised<br />

also jointly when some shareholders are<br />

tied by an agreement to run the company together.<br />

On the other hand there is no acquisition<br />

of control if there are shifting majorities. Without<br />

acquisition of control there is no structural change<br />

on the markets concerned and hence no concentration<br />

of assets or turnover.<br />

Not all mergers need to be examined, just those<br />

that would have the potential to be anticompeti-<br />

<br />

turnover is in place In the United Republic of Tan-<br />

<br />

by the Authority itself, which is quite important to<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

threshold amounts set by the Fair Competition<br />

Commission. The gazetted threshold is of Tanzanian<br />

Shillings 800 million.<br />

Although the United Republic of Tanzania has a<br />

<br />

immunity to a person who acts unintentionally in<br />

-<br />

<br />

<br />

The obligation to notify should be full without<br />

<br />

accordingly or the unintentionally exception be interpreted<br />

so rigorously that it is never applied.<br />

<br />

mergers, with combined market shares below<br />

35 per cent, while the merger guidelines inform<br />

<br />

merger review process. Restrictive mergers can be<br />

nonetheless authorized if there is an overriding<br />

public interest. The law lists what these overriding<br />

public interests are and most would fall under<br />

normal competition considerations in most<br />

<br />

defences. Only the protection of the environment<br />

appears as a pure public interest item, but it is<br />

vironment<br />

can be affected by a merger. It seems<br />

therefore that the public interest objectives to be<br />

COMPARATIVE ASSESMENT

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!