Displaying items by tag: Cartel

Romania: The Competition Council has launched an investigation into an alleged anti-competitive agreement between Holcim, CRH and HeidelbergCement in early November 2018. It is concerned that there has been possible coordination of prices between the companies since 2010. As part of the probe, it conducted raids at the headquarters of the three companies and seized documentation. It has warned that fines of up to 10% of company turnover are applicable should it find any evidence of collusion. However, it also mentioned that companies that cooperated with the competition authority could expect leniency in the form of immunity to or reduced fines.

India: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea by cement producers about a charge of cartel-like behaviour made by real estate developers and upheld by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). However, the court has insisted that the payment schedule of the fine imposed will have to be upheld while the appeal proceeds, according to the Economic Times newspaper. The accused cement producers have been ordered to deposit 10% of the fine.

10 cement companies – including India Cements, Ramco Cements, Nuvoco Vistas Corporation, Ambuja Cement, ACC, Jaiprakash Associates, Century Textiles and Industries and UltraTech Cement – were accused by the Builders' Association of India and the CCI in 2010 of cartel-like behaviour. They were then fined US$905m or 0.5% of their net turnover. The producers first tried to appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) but the tribunal dismissed their plea against the CCI finding in late July 2018.

India: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal by cement producers against a US$975m fine for alleged cartel-like behaviour. The Competition Commission of India penalised 11 cement companies in August 2016, according to the Press Trust of India. The companies included UltraTech Cement, ACC, Ambuja, Ramco and JK Cement and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association (CMA). UltraTech Cement has been fined US$171m, the highest amount in the group.

Turkey: Göltaş Çimento and AS Çimento are being investigated by the Turkish Competition Authority for alleged price fixing of cement. The government body says that its preliminary investigation in early May 2018 has discovered ‘serious’ findings. Further investiation will follow to examine whether the law has been broken and whether fines are applicable. Both cement producers operate plants in the southwest of the country.

Argentina: The National Commission for Protection of Competition (CNDC) has hastened an investigation into alleged collusion and coordinated behaviour in the cement industry. Cement prices increased by 13% in May 2018, according to La Nacion newspaper. So far in 2018 the price of cement has risen by 23% and the cement companies say that further price rises are expected in June 2018.

The local industry has blamed rising input prices of up to 50% due to local currency devaluation but the Argentine Peso has only fallen by 30% so far in 2018. The companies under investigation include Loma Negra, LafargeHolcim, Petroquimica Comodoro Rivadavia and others.

India: Nitin Gadkari, the Minister Of Road Transport And Highways, says that the government is considering taking action against cement producers for cartel activity, according to the ET Now television channel. The sector has faced various claims of alleged cartel-like activity. In early 2017 the Competition Commission of India found seven cement companies guilty of bid rigging and cartelisation and imposed a total fine of nearly US$30m on them. This followed a US$1bn fine levied on ACC, ACL, Binani, Century, India Cements, JK Cement, Lafarge, Ramco, UltraTech, Jaiprakash Associates and the Cement Manufacturers Association in August 2016.

Cement cartels (or at least cases of cartel-like behaviour) have reared their ugly heads this week... again. In two different markets, Australia and Brazil, competition authorities are at various stages of taking major action against large proportions of their respective cement industries. In another, Europe, it is the cement producers that are taking on the authorities.

This week, the Australian Federal Court has found five producers guilty of agreeing anti-competitive contracts with regard to fly-ash supply contracts from power stations in the state of Victoria. Only Cement Australia Holdings was not accused. Penalties are to be determined at a later date – watch this space.

As drastic as the Australian situation may be, it is Brazil's anti-trust authority Cade that looks set to make the biggest 'splash' in a cement industry in 2014. On 13 March 2014 it was reported that a US$1.32bn fine, split over six cement producers, has been put on hold after the producers disputed a ruling that would see them lose an average 24% of their cement assets each. So big is this fine that it actually eclipses the US$1.1bn fine seen in India in 2012. In light of the amount of influence that they look set to lose, it now looks extremely likely that the producers will appeal. This sets the scene for indeterminably long waits for legal proceedings and more evidence to be collected. Whatever happens in Brazil, there will be major implications for its increasingly-concentrated cement market.

Elsewhere, in a strange inversion of the normal situation, in Europe it is the cement producers that are taking action. This week the European Court has rejected an appeal from eight major cement producers including Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex subsidiaries with respect to the European Commission's handling of an anti-cartel investigation that began in 2008. That case saw anti-trust investigations start in 2010. Proceedings continue.

As stated previously in this column, cartel-like behaviour is not necessarily indicative of a formal cartel. There are innumerable factors that make every case different and, in each, proving actual collusion is very hard indeed. In the cement industry however, it appears that 'convictions' in cartel cases are easier to spot than in other sectors.

"The first thing for any new competition regulator is to go out and find the cement cartel. My experience of this subject is, it is always there, somewhere," wrote Richard Whish, a Professor of Law at King's College London in 2001. "The only countries in which I had been unable to find the cement cartel is where there is a national state-owned monopoly for cement."

The authorities will keep looking and producers, guilty or not, will continue to wait for their call.

Pakistan's Lucky Cement received the 'all clear' for its cement imports from the South African regulators last week. The situation exposes the increasingly competitive market in the country after the South African Competition Commission cartel investigations in 2011.

Sales of Lucky Cement were originally shut down in 2011 due to accusations made by its competitors, including Pretoria Portland Cement (PPP) and Natal Portland Cement (NPC). They complained that Lucky was not complying with South African standards. South Africa's National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) then ran its independent investigation and released its results last week.

The regulator's full 28-day test found no evidence that Lucky Cement imports were non-compliant with regards to their quality. A minor infringement concerning underweight bags was found and fixed. However, about a week beforehand, Lafarge South Africa's CEO said that his company was considering approaching another trade body with concerns about 'low-quality cheap cement' imported from Pakistan.

More serious criticism came from the Cement and Concrete Institute when the NRCS admitted that it didn't know how much cement had been imported into South Africa so far in 2012. The NRCS is supposed to inspect and approve the testing bodies each producer and importer uses for every 500t of cement.

Lucky Cement has been a regular importer of cement to South Africa since 2009. It exports around 1.65Mt/yr to over 22 countries in South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. CCI figures reckon that 140,000t of cement was imported to South Africa in the first quarter of 2012, mostly by Lucky Cement. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012 South Africa's capacity is around 11Mt/yr.

Four domestic producers – Lafarge, PPC, AfriSam and NPC – were accused of cartel activity by the South African Competition Commission, in a case that has been running since 2008. PPC confirmed the existence of the cartel, whilst Lafarge and AfriSam were fined US$19.6m and US$16m respectively.

By letting Lucky Cement resume the sale of its cement in South Africa, the NRCS has arguably done more than the Competition Commission to prevent cartel activity. With reports surfacing that other producers in Pakistan and India are considering exports to South Africa, domestic producers are going to have to become more inventive and more competitive.

India: The announcement last week that 11 Indian cement producers face a combined US$1.1bn penalty for a price-fixing cartel will cast a long shadow over the country's increasingly vulnerable-looking cement industry.

For years the Indian cement industry has been beset by suspicions of over-capacity despite a constant stream of new capacity. Now the Competition Commission of India (CCI) thinks that it has got to the heart of the paradox by accusing manufacturers of limiting production amid high demand and colluding to artificially raise prices.

The amount that the CCI has fined the companies, 50% of their net profits for the two fiscal years to 31 March 2011, is quite astonishing. If enforced in its entirety the fine effectively negates a large portion of the sector's profits for an entire fiscal year. This is clearly not a slap-on-the-wrist from the CCI.

In the 1990s and early 2000s a similar cartel case involving European (and specifically German) cement producers led to fines in the order of hundreds of thousands of US Dollars. The industry has since cleaned up its act considerably as a result. Indian producers would be foolish not to follow suit. What are the likely effects in the Indian case?

Removing the cartel that the CCI purports to have found would reduce prices, which are inflated by an oft-quoted 25% median in a cartel. This is clearly good news for consumers and potentially the development of the Indian economy in general. The obvious losers in this situation would be the producers, which would see a reduction in profitability. Some of the smaller producers would find such a situation very challenging, with the risk of going bust or being absorbed into larger companies.

Another possibility is that the accusations will spread along the value chain. Shortly after the announcement of the fine, the Builders' Association of India (BAI), announced that it wants the fine increased to accommodate compensation claims from contractors and consumers that it feels are out-of-pocket as a result of the cartel. Many will feel aggrieved now that they 'know' the cement companies were profiteering - sorting out claims from affected parties could be a long and costly exercise.

The effects of the fine could also extend to outside of India. Indian cement producers, very good customers of the Chinese and European cement plant manufacturers in recent years, will have to deal with lower revenues. This will clearly dampen their enthusiasm to contract further capacity and may cause knock-on-effects for Sinoma, KHD, Polysuis and other major suppliers. The cement industries of neighbouring countries, like Pakistan, may also be affected.

Whatever happens in the Indian cement industry as a result of the CCI's fine, the authority, only formed in 2009, has shown that it is serious about taking on corruption in India. In the long run that can only help develop the potential of the country.

"The first thing for any new competition regulator is to go out and find the cement cartel. My experience of this subject is, it is always there, somewhere," wrote Richard Whish, a Professor of Law at King's College London in 2001. "The only countries in which I had been unable to find the cement cartel is where there is a national state-owned monopoly for cement."

Last week Lafarge received a US$20m slap-in-the-face for cartel-like activity in South Africa. The case, which has been running since 2008, has investigated dealings at Lafarge, Pretoria Portland Cement, AfriSam and Natal Portland Cement-Cimpor. Yet the question remains: are cartels ever a good thing for the industry?

Back in December 2011 we covered the Common Price Agreement (CPA) in an article on cement price trends in the UK in Global Cement Magazine. This legally-approved cartel, operated by the UK Cement Makers' Federation, ran from 1934 until 1987. It was dissolved to allow UK producers to compete with cheaper foreign imports. Its supporters argued that it kept prices down in remote areas and stabilised the industry, a situation that cement buyers faced with escalating prices in Tanzania and Saudi Arabia might sympathise with this week. Despite this, prices in the UK fell after the CPA ended in 1987.

An uncited 'fact' on Wikipedia – itself a virtual monopoly on online knowledge – suggests that the median price increase achieved by cartels over the last 200 years could be 25%. Lafarge's fine represented 6% of its 2010 annual turnover in the region. Depending on how Lafarge's sales relate to its turnover this raises the possibility that even with its hefty fine Lafarge may still be in profit over the venture.

Cartels dog the cement industry given the prevalence of small groups of sellers in many markets. Throw in the current economic pressures in regions with over-capacity and the temptation must be irresistible. When one makes a link from this week's story from Pakistan about over-capacity to January's headline of 'inexplicably high' prices, the feeling occurs that Lafarge's chastening in South Africa is just the tip of the iceberg.

What do you think? Join our discussion on cartels in the Global Cement LinkedIn Group