2023 CLD 1266 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS Ss. 3, 11 & 31---Merger of companies---Post-merger risks---Determination---Petitioners/companies applied for permission of their merger---Held, that there could not be any lessening of competition as both the groups had decisive influence over both the Merger Parties---Both the companies were being managed by common Chief Executive Officer, having same brandings and common distribution network---There was dependency of one party's operations on other party's assets and finances as well as profit sharing by both the parties on its production---Product lines of NP and CAN were being offered by two separate companies, ultimate controlling groups of the entities were same, therefore, AHG and FG were the sole producers of NP and CAN fertilizers and both the groups had decisive influence over the operation of Merger Parties---In post-merger scenario the Merger Parties consolidated their operation on papers in the form of surviving entity (FFCL) and post-merger risk of elimination of competitive constraints did not arise---Competition law was concerned with behaviour of an undertaking and conduct between undertakings that would ordinarily pursue an economic aim that was separate from that of its competitors (and would thereby have been in competition with each other) which was not the case in instant matter---Proposed transaction and consummated transaction were authorized under S. 31(1)(d)(i) of Competition Act, 2010---Competition Commission disposed of proceedings under S. 11(12) of Competition Act, 2010---Merger was allowed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD