Displaying items by tag: Competition Commission

South Africa: Mining and materials company Afrimat says that further regulatory conditions as part of its ongoing acquisition of Lafarge South Africa have been met. The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy of South Africa has consented in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, the Financial Surveillance Department of the South African Reserve Bank has approved the acquisition in terms of the Exchange Control Regulations and the respective Competition Authorities in Botswana and eSwatini have approved the implementation of the acquisition. Approval by the Competition Commission is still outstanding but it recommended the transaction to the Competition Tribunal in November 2023. However, the Competition Commission highlighted ‘horizontal overlaps’ in the aggregates and ready-mix concrete sectors and recommended that the parties be required to divest assets across the affected sectors.

Afrimat first announced in June 2023 that it had agreed a share purchase agreement with a Holcim Group subsidiary, Caricement, to acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Lafarge South Africa. The proposed acquisition will become unconditional and be implemented once approval by the Competition Tribunal has been obtained.

South Africa: The Competition Tribunal has confirmed an agreement between PPC and the South African Competition Commission granting the company immunity from prosecution in an investigation allegedly involving price fixing and market sharing between local cement producers from 1995 to 2009. The Cape Times newspaper has reported that the ruling additionally granted the company immunity from related fines. PPC has reportedly agreed not to engage in price fixing or prohibited conduct in the future. The Commission said, "In addition, it will have to develop a competition law compliance programme."

AfriSam and Lafarge Industries South Africa paid fines related to the case. However, a case against Natal Portland Cement (NPC) was dismissed.

South Africa: The Competition Tribunal has resumed hearings into allegations of cartel-like behaviour by Natal Portland Cement (NPC), Pretoria Portland Cement Company (PPC), Lafarge Industries South Africa (Lafarge) and AfriSam Consortium (AfriSam). It follows a referral by the Competition Commission following an investigation in 2015 that examined collusive conduct between the cement companies between 2008 and 2012. At the time PPC was granted conditional leniency and AfriSam and Lafarge settled with the Commission.

Colombia: The Council of State has confirmed a US$0.31m fine to Holcim Colombia imposed by the Superintendent of Industry and Commerce (SIC) for fixing the price of cement. The ruling follows a similar confirmation of a fine to Cemex. The court found that an agreement between Cemex Colombia, Holcim Colombia and Cementos Argos distorted the price, supply and sales of Ordinary Portland Cement in the second half of 2005.

India: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a penalty of more than Rs67bn (US$1bn) on 11 cement companies for alleged cartelisation. The companies affected are UltraTech, Binani, Ramco, Jaiprakash Associates, JK Cement, Lafarge, India Cements, ACL, ACC, Century, and Shree Cement, besides the Indian Cement Manufacturers' Association (CMA). The order issued by the anti-trust regulator held the companies and the CMA responsible for 'acting in concert in fixing prices of cement.' The companies and the CMA allegedly shared details relating to prices, capacity utilisation, production and dispatch, which led to restricted production and supplies in the market hurting consumers and the Indian economy, the order said. Further, the CCI also found the cement companies to be acting in concert in fixing prices of cement. A final order has been passed by CCI, pursuant to the directions issued by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) remanding the matter back, while setting aside the original order of the fair trade regulator, which had had also imposed fine on cement companies.

Penalties of US$171m on ACC, US$173m on ACL, US$24.9m on Binani, US$40.9m on Century, US$27.9m on India Cements, US$19.1m on JK Cement, US$73.1m on Lafarge, US$38.5m on Ramco, US$175.3m on UltraTech and US$197.5m on Jaiprakash Associates were imposed by CCI. In addition, a penalty of US$109,000 was slapped on the CMA.Penalising the companies, the CCI said the actions of the companies and the CMA are not only detrimental to the interests of consumers but also to the whole economy, as cement is a critical input in construction and infrastructure industry, and vital to economic development. Through a separate order, the regulator has slapped US$59.2m fine on Shree Cement for unfair businesses practices.

The CAT had, in late 2015, revoked CCI's order, imposing a combined penalty of US$943m on cement companies for allegedly forming a price cartel. The tribunal quashed the commission's order after observing that Ashok Chawla, then CCI chairperson, was party to the order, despite not being present during hearings. The tribunal also allowed the cement companies to withdraw the US$94m deposited by them in compliance of its interim order. The interim order, in May 2013, had stayed the penalty but asked the companies to deposit 10 per cent of its pending disposal of their appeal. In June 2012, the commission had fined ACC, Ambuja Cement, UltraTech Cement and Jaiprakash Associates a little over US$149m each for forming a cartel. The other companies fined included Madras Cements, Century Cement, Binani Cement, Lafarge India, JK Cement, India Cements and Grasim Cements (now merged with UltraTech). The CMA was also a party in this case and it was fined a token amount.

Competition watchdog CCI said interactions between the trade body and the cement companies were not confined to promoting the interest of the industry. "Such interactions have been found to have transgressed the limits in sharing of information and extended to discussions on cost, prices, production and capacities...," the CCI order said. The case was filed by Builders Association of India against the cement companies and CMA alleging collusion to fix prices.

UK: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a final order affecting the suppliers of cement and cementitious products in Great Britain (GB). The order sets out these suppliers will be prohibited from sending generic price announcement letters to their customers. Instead, any price announcement letter will have to be specific and relevant to the customer receiving it, including setting out the last unit price paid, the new unit price and specific details of other charges that apply to the customer. The order is effective from 23 January 2016.

The order results from the Competition Commissions (CC) investigation into the supply or acquisition of aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete in GB, which required Lafarge Tarmac to sell one of its cement plants and Hanson to sell one of its ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) plants to enhance competition in the cement and GGBS markets. The CC also said that it would implement two further remedy measures aimed at reducing transparency in the GB cement markets, comprising a prohibition on generic cement price announcements and restrictions on the disclosure and publication of market data.

UK: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has welcomed the sale of plants by Lafarge Tarmac and Hanson.

In the Competition Commission's (CC) market investigation published in January 2014, the CC had ordered Lafarge Tarmac to sell one of two cement plants and Hanson to sell one of its ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) plants to enhance competition in the cement and GGBS markets in the UK. Lafarge Tarmac appealed the CC's decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, in December 2014, the European Commission cleared the merger between Lafarge and Holcim, provided it divest certain assets to a new market entrant. In accordance with those commitments, the Lafarge Tarmac business in the UK, with the exception of the Cauldon cement plant, was sold to CRH and the legal challenges brought by Lafarge Tarmac to the CC have been withdrawn.

In addition, Hanson completed the sale of its GGBS plant in Scunthorpe, as required by the CC's report, to Francis Flower on 31 July 2015. This news means that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has completed the divestment remedies arising from the CC's report.

CRH's ambitions took a setback this week when the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) raided the offices of its subsidiary Irish Cement as part of an investigation into the bagged-cement industry in Ireland. Details are vague but the media reports state that the inquiry is examining whether or not the Irish market leader has abused its dominant position in the market, valued at Euro50m/yr.

Undoubtedly CRH and Irish Cement hold a leading place in the local cement industry. Irish Cement runs two integrated cement plants in the Republic with a combined production capacity of 2.7Mt/yr. This constitutes 79% of the country's 3.4t/yr total capacity.

Previous acquisition activity such as CRH's purchase of Dudman Group's UK import terminals in July 2013 has led to concerns regarding market competition. At that time Irish cement importer Eircem complained to the UK Competition Commission (CC), claiming that 'there is no free competition' in the market and also to initiate proceedings against CRH for damages relating to alleged anti-competitive behaviour in that market.

Roll the clock forward nearly two years and CRH is making the headlines once more for a much larger acquisition portfolio: the purchase of the largest chunk of assets sold from the merger of Lafarge and Hocim. With regards to Ireland and the UK, CRH will take on three (Dunbar, Tunstead and Aberthaw) of Lafarge Tarmac's five cement plants. Lafarge Tarmac's other two plants (Cookstown and Cauldon) will become part of the Aggregate Industries division of Lafarge Holcim. And once again, following acquisition activity competition, questions are looming as the CCPC raid suggests. This time though the potential impact of any market abuse, if it is actually happening, is far larger given the influx of UK and European assets that CRH are taking on.

We don't know what the CCPC will find but we can look at how CRH was viewed in the UK CC report on 'Aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market investigation' published in January 2014. At that time the CC concluded that, "We have seen nothing to suggest... that the recent acquisitions by CRH will result in importers collectively or individually offering a significantly greater constraint on cement producers than in the past." Amusingly though CRH also told the CC that it had no major expansion plants for the UK.

We also know how one of CRH's competitors felt about them. One of the more telling quotations from the CC report was from a Commercial Manager, at Lafarge Cement Ireland who viewed expansion in Ireland by Lafarge as a 'mechanism' to control CRH's ambitions by attacking it in its home market by showing CRH that Lafarge was a global player. Ironically the comments of that anonymous manager look very different now that CRH is on track to becoming a global player itself.

South Africa: The Competition Commission of South Africa has referred Natal Portland Cement (NPC) to the Competition Tribunal. The referral follows the Commission's investigation, between 2008 and 2012, of collusive conduct in the cement cartel against the four main cement producers, NPC, Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited (PPC), Lafarge Industries South Africa (Lafarge) and AfriSam Consortium (Pty) Ltd (AfriSam).

PPC was granted conditional leniency in terms of the corporate leniency policy of the Commission. AfriSam settled with the Commission and agreed to pay an administrative penalty of US$11.2m representing 3% of its annual turnover in 2010. Lafarge also settled with the Commission and agreed to pay an administrative penalty of US$13m representing 6% of its annual turnover in 2010.

The investigation found that the four cement producers agreed to collude and to divide the cement market by allocating market shares and indirectly fixing the price of cement during a legal cartel in South Africa that ended in 1996. The Competition Commission allege that they subsequently reinforced these collusive arrangements through a series of other agreements, which NPC's representatives were party to, including an agreement to progressively exchange competitively sensitive sales data through the Concrete and Cement Institute of South Africa.

The Commission is pursuing a maximum penalty of 10% of NPC's annual turnover and a Tribunal order that NPC contravened the Competition Act.

India: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a case of alleged cartel activity among 11 cement companies due to a lack of evidence. The companies were named as Penna Cements, India Cements, Bharathi Cements, Dalmia (Bharat) Cements, Bhavya Cements, Zuari Cements, Ultratech Cements, Jaypee Cements, Ramco Cements, KCP Cements and My Home Cements.