Mergers that take place in Singapore, or that may affect markets in Singapore, are subject to the merger control regime established by the Competition Act, Chapter 50B of Singapore (the Act), unless excluded or exempt under the Act. The Act is administered and enforced by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) (established on 1 January 2005 as the Competition Commission of Singapore, as a statutory body under the Ministry of Trade and Industry). Section 54 of the Act prohibits mergers that have resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market in Singapore for goods and services.
i Definition of a merger
Pursuant to Section 54(2) of the Act, a merger is deemed to occur if:
- two or more undertakings, previously independent of one another, merge;
- one or more persons or other undertakings acquire direct or indirect control of the whole or part of one or more other undertakings; or
- the result of an acquisition by one undertaking (the first undertaking) of the assets (including goodwill), or a substantial part of the assets, of another undertaking (the second undertaking) is to place the first undertaking in a position to replace or substantially replace the second undertaking in the business or, as appropriate, the part concerned of the business in which that undertaking was engaged immediately before the acquisition.
The following are excluded from the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act:
- mergers that are:
- approved by any minister or regulatory authority (other than the CCCS) pursuant to any requirement imposed by written law;
- approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore pursuant to any requirement imposed under any written law; or
- under the jurisdiction of another regulatory authority under any written law or code of practice relating to competition;
- mergers involving any undertaking relating to any specified activity as defined in Paragraph 6(2) of the Third Schedule to the Act; and
- mergers with net economic efficiencies (e.g., lower costs, greater innovation, greater choice or higher quality).
Mergers that are under the jurisdiction of another regulatory authority under any written law or code of practice relating to competition may be subject to pre-merger notification or approvals as set out under such written law or code of practice.
ii Applicability to joint ventures
A joint venture may be subject to the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act if it is considered a merger. In order to be considered a merger, a joint venture must fulfil the following criteria:
- joint control must exist, where two or more parties have the possibility of exercising decisive influence (including negative control) over that undertaking;
- the joint venture must perform all the functions of an autonomous economic entity, where the joint venture operates on a market and performs the functions normally carried out by undertakings operating on that market, including having a management dedicated to its day-to-day operations and access to sufficient resources, including finance, staff and assets (tangible and intangible); and
- the joint venture must be intended to operate on a lasting basis.
A joint venture that merely takes over a specific function (e.g., research and development or production) of its parent companies' business activities without having access to the market is not considered a merger.
No special substantive test is applied for a joint venture that is considered a merger under the Act. Whether a joint venture is prohibited under Section 54 of the Act will depend on whether it results, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market affecting Singapore, and whether any exemptions or exclusions apply.
iii Foreign-to-foreign mergers
The prohibition under Section 54 of the Act may apply even where the merger takes place outside Singapore or where any merger party is located outside Singapore, so long as the merger could have effect on any market affecting Singapore (whether as part of a global, regional or local market).
iv Jurisdictional thresholds
There are no jurisdictional safe harbours where mergers that do not trigger specified quantitative thresholds are exempt or excluded from the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act.
Generally, the CCCS is likely to give further consideration to the merger if it meets the following quantitative thresholds:
- the merged entity has a market share of 40 per cent or more; or
- the merged entity has a market share of between 20 and 40 per cent and the post-merger market share of the three largest firms (i.e., the concentration ratio of the three largest firms) is 70 per cent or more.
The quantitative thresholds are based on the relevant markets defined in accordance with the rules set out in the gazetted CCCS Guidelines on Market Definition.
The CCCS also considers mergers that satisfy the following de minimis thresholds to be of more concern:
- the turnover in Singapore (i.e., turnover booked in Singapore as well as turnover from customers in Singapore) in the financial year preceding the transaction of at least one of the parties exceeded S$5 million; or
- the combined worldwide turnover in the financial year preceding the transaction of all of the parties exceeded S$50 million.
The CCCS has stressed that it may also investigate transactions that fall below the indicative market share thresholds and the de minimis thresholds. Parties must conduct a self-assessment to establish whether their merger could give rise to a substantial lessening of competition within any market affecting Singapore and whether a merger notification should be made to the CCCS.
ii YEAR IN REVIEW
The merger regime under the Act came into force in 2007. As at 31 April 2019, the CCCS has received 74 merger control notifications, of which, the CCCS proposed to move to a Phase II review for 16 transactions, and commitments were considered for no fewer than seven transactions.
The CCCS has also exercised its powers to issue provisional decisions to prohibit mergers, arising from horizontal and non-horizontal (i.e., vertical and conglomerate) effects. The most recent being 25 May 2018 when the CCCS issued a provisional decision to block Wilhelmsen Maritime Services AS's proposed acquisition of Drew Marine Group Coöperatief UA and Drew Marine Partners LP's technical solutions, fire, safety and rescue businesses in the marine chemicals sector in Singapore. The CCCS has also, in the past 18 months, cleared a merger conditional on Singapore-specific behavioural and divestiture commitments, and conducted an extended Phase I review for one transaction.
|Statistics on merger filings with the CCCS: 1 July 2007 to 31 May 2017|
|Merger filings lodged with the CCCS||Merger filings that the CCCS had proposed to move to Phase II||Merger filings where commitments were considered||Merger filings where CCCS took a decision to block||Merger investigations by the CCCS*|
|74||16||No fewer than 7||3||Undisclosed|
* Where the CCCS probes or challenges a merger which has not been notified, such a process is confidential.
In addition to the review of notified mergers, the CCCS has also been actively investigating transactions that have not been notified. Such investigations may be triggered by the CCCS through its market intelligence function or by third-party complaints. On 24 September 2018, the CCCS issued an infringement decision against Grab Inc (Grab) and Uber Technologies, Inc (Uber) in relation to the acquisition of Uber's Southeast Asian business by Grab for a 27.5 per cent stake in return. The infringement decision involved remedies and financial penalties totalling S$13 million between both parties. The remedies involved removing exclusivity obligations for Grab drivers, removing Grab's exclusivity arrangements with any taxi fleet in Singapore, maintaining Grab's pre-merger pricing algorithm and driver commission rates, and requiring Uber to sell Lion City Rentals vehicles to any potential competitor. It is noteworthy that the CCCS commenced its investigation and issuance of the infringement decision notwithstanding the parties' announced intention to voluntarily lodge a post-completion merger notification to the CCCS.
i Revised CCCS guidelines
On 1 December 2016, the CCCS Guidelines on the Substantive Assessment of Mergers 2016 came into effect. The key additions with practical impact on the assessment of the antitrust risk for mergers in Singapore, and the need for merger notifications to be made, include clarifications on:
- minority shareholdings giving rise to control, in particular, in view of attendance and voting patterns at shareholders' meetings, and the wide dispersion of shares;
- a substantial lessening of competition being deemed to arise even if it is not felt across the entire market or all dimensions of competition, which supports a market segmentation approach in the assessment of mergers;
- additional evidence required in supporting a failing firm defence;
- additional evidence required in supporting a defence on countervailing buyer power of customers; and
- additional types of net economic efficiencies to be considered by the CCCS, and the supporting documentary and quantitative evidence required.
ii Merger clearances
The CCCS received a total of eight merger filings between 1 May 2018 and 30 April 2019, among which transactions notified in other jurisdictions include EQT/Widex, Siemens/Alstom, Nasdaq/Cinnober and Knauf/USG. Within the same period, the CCCS issued a total of seven clearance decisions.
iii THE MERGER CONTROL REGIME
i Voluntary regime
Under the Singapore merger control regime, a merger notification to the CCCS is voluntary, but advisable and expected if the merger may potentially result in a substantial lessening of competition in any relevant market or a market segment (defined in accordance with the rules set out in the gazetted CCCS Guidelines on Market Definition).
In the absence of a filing, the merger parties bear the antitrust risk as there is no limitation period on the time frame after which the CCCS may cease to have the power to investigate a transaction. There is accordingly an evergreen risk of an investigation and subsequent divestments or other remedies to the transaction, even where the transaction has been implemented for some time. The CCCS has stated that it will generally not consider the costs of divestment that the merger parties would have to incur, as it would have been open to the merger parties to notify the merger to the CCCS for a decision. The only way to close off the antitrust risk is to undertake a merger notification and obtain a clearance decision from the CCCS.
Risks of not filing: investigation risk
As part of its statutory remit in the context of merger control, the CCCS keeps markets under review to ascertain which mergers and acquisitions are taking place.
Where the CCCS identifies transactions that it considers may potentially raise concerns, the CCCS will approach the merger parties and third parties to gather further information about the transaction and the effect on competition. A formal investigation may be triggered under Section 62 of the Act if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a merger has infringed, or that an anticipated merger, if carried into effect, will infringe, the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act. Where the CCCS investigates a transaction, the CCCS may publish the fact of its investigation on its website.
The CCCS may be prompted to investigate:
- following consistent complaints, or one or two substantiated complaints, from third parties;
- where there are preliminary indications that the CCCS's indicative market share thresholds are likely to be crossed;
- where customers in Singapore appear, post-merger, to have limited choice; or
- for vertical mergers, where there is a possibility of competitors being foreclosed.
The CCCS has previously raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of transactions with Section 54 of the Act even where:
- mergers by the same parties, or involving the same industry, had received clearances in other jurisdictions;
- there are no significant issues identified within the wider defined relevant markets, but the CCCS has reviewed whether there may be competition issues within narrower market segments, on a global or Singapore-specific basis; and
- the CCCS's indicative market share thresholds are not crossed.
Risks of not filing: closing risk
A CCCS investigation may be triggered at any point pre or post-closing of the transaction. There is no administrative timetable for an investigation, and the investigation can take several months. This may adversely affect the timeline for closing of the transaction or for implementation of the transaction post-closing.
Risks of not filing: burden of proof risk
Where the CCCS investigates, the CCCS is likely to have formed its theories of harm, and the practical burden of proof will be on the merger parties. From our experience, this burden of proof is significantly harder to discharge.
The temperament of the merger review process is also materially harsher in cases of investigations. The extent and volume of documents requested for also tends to be much wider.
While merger notifications to the CCCS are voluntary, the CCCS requires all parties to mergers to conduct a self-assessment on whether a merger filing is necessary, in accordance with the methodologies in the guidelines published by the CCCS, read with its decided cases. Where the CCCS investigates a merger that was not notified, the CCCS would expect the parties to explain why the merger was not brought to their attention and why a merger filing was not made.
In the event of a CCCS finding that the transaction gives rise to an infringement of the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act, it will consider whether the infringement was intentionally or negligently committed in determining whether financial penalties should be levied on the parties, apart from other directions and remedies. The CCCS may impose financial penalties of up to 10 per cent of the turnover of the undertaking in Singapore for each year of infringement, up to a maximum of three years, and remedies on parties to the transaction, such as a direction for the merger to be unwound or for divestments to be carried out. A contemporaneous self-assessment documented at the time of the transaction would be considered as a first line of defence to the CCCS that the infringement was not entered into intentionally or negligently.
In the context of cross-border transactions, the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act may apply even where the merger takes place outside of Singapore, or where any party is located outside Singapore, so long as the merger has effect on any market affecting Singapore (whether as part of a global, regional or local market). In its assessment of the potential impact of global mergers, the CCCS will also consider Singapore-specific factors. Accordingly, it is necessary to include an assessment of any Singapore-specific effects in the self-assessment as to whether the merger may give rise to a substantial lessening of competition within any market affecting Singapore.
ii Timing for notification
The Act specifies no deadline for notification. If the parties wish to notify their merger, they may do so at any time before, during or after the merger.
To apply to the CCCS for a decision on a merger or anticipated merger, the Form M1 (the first notification form) must be completed and submitted to the CCCS together with the prescribed fee. Once the CCCS receives the complete Form M1 and the requisite filing fees, it will commence its Phase I review of the merger.
For anticipated mergers, an application can be made only once the parties have a good-faith intention to proceed with the transaction and the merger has been made public (or if the parties have no objection to the CCCS publicising the merger).
In the case of completed mergers, an application may be made at any time – although parties are encouraged to notify as soon as possible after completion.
iii Time frame for review
There are no statutory deadlines for the CCCS's review process. That said, the CCCS Merger Procedure Guidelines 2012 prescribe an indicative time frame of 30 working days within which the CCCS should complete its Phase I review, starting from the date on which a complete Form M1 is submitted and the requisite filing fee is paid.
The indicative time frame for a Phase II review is 120 working days, commencing from the date on which the CCCS receives a complete Form M2 (the second notification form) and a satisfactory response to its Phase II information request. Although the indicative time frame for a Phase II review is 120 working days, the CCCS has been cited stating that it may consider reasonable requests by merging parties for shorter timelines for assessment on a case-by-case basis.
In both the Phase I and Phase II review, the CCCS may require the applicant to provide additional information. If the applicant is unable to provide the requested information by the deadline stipulated by the CCCS, an extension may be requested. If the CCCS extends the deadline, it may stop the clock until the requested information is provided, thereby extending the 30-working-day (Phase I) or 120-working-day (Phase II) indicative review period.
At any time during the Phase I or Phase II review process, the parties (which may not be limited to the applicant if a sole filing is made) may offer commitments to the CCCS to remedy competition concerns on the adverse effects of the transaction. In order to accommodate the commitments procedure in a Phase I review – including for public consultation on the proposed commitments – the CCCS is likely to extend the indicative timeline by 20 working days or more, at its discretion. An extension may also be required in a Phase II review.
There are no formal avenues for parties to accelerate the review procedure, similar to, for example, the simplified procedure available for the European Commission. There is, however, a confidential advice process and the availability of pre-notification discussions (elaborated below), which are avenues that could be explored to engage the CCCS earlier, and to potentially expedite the overall review time frame in certain cases.
The CCCS provides for a confidential process for businesses to approach it for advice, typically issued within 14 working days of the application. The confidential advice includes an indication of whether a merger is likely to raise competition concerns in Singapore and whether a notification to the CCCS is advisable, on the basis that such advice is provided without having taken into account third-party views.
This process is available only for transactions:
- that raise a genuine issue relating to the competitive assessment in Singapore;
- where there is a good-faith intention to proceed with the transaction; and
- that are not in the public domain.
Confidential advice is not binding on the CCCS and the CCCS reserves the right to investigate the merger situation where the statutory test for doing so (i.e., reasonable grounds to suspect that the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act may be infringed) is met.
This option is generally most useful for foreign-to-foreign mergers with a tangential effect on markets in Singapore. It may also be helpful in cases where parties may not agree on the findings of the self-assessment, and therefore wish to obtain a non-binding guidance from the CCCS, on whether a merger notification would be necessary.
iv Pre-notification discussion
Where parties have decided to file, they are also encouraged to approach the CCCS before filing for a pre-notification discussion to discuss the content and timing of their notifications. This is to identify further information that the CCCS may require in assessing the filing. Where possible, the CCCS will also indicate gaps in the information provided in the draft notification form. Such discussions can help the CCCS to plan its work and facilitate an expeditious merger review process.
In the context of such discussions, the CCCS does not give views on whether a merger would likely require a Phase II assessment or would result in a substantial lessening of competition.
v Non-suspensory regime
There is no requirement to suspend implementation of a merger or anticipated merger before clearance by the CCCS. However, parties that give effect to or proceed with mergers before CCCS clearance should note that they do so at their own commercial risk, as the CCCS has the power to unwind a merger that has already been effected and – in the case of intentional or negligent infringements – to impose financial penalties if it decides that the merger infringes the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act.
vi Commitments and remedies
At any time during the Phase I or Phase II review process, the parties (which may not be limited to the applicant if a sole filing is made) may offer commitments to the CCCS to remedy competition concerns on the adverse effects of the transaction.
Where the CCCS proposes to make an infringement decision at the end of the Phase II review, it will issue a notice to the applicant setting out its provisional statement of decision. The applicant's written response to the provisional statement of decision will be its last opportunity to propose commitments or give its views on the remedies proposed by the CCCS. However, even where the parties propose commitments, the CCCS may consider and impose alternative remedies.
In relation to commitments and remedies, the CCCS's starting point is to choose the remedial action that will restore the competition that has been, or is expected to be, substantially lessened as a result of the merger. There are broadly two types of remedial action that the CCCS may consider – structural and behavioural.
The CCCS prefers structural remedies to behavioural remedies, as they tend to address the competition concerns more directly and require less monitoring.
The CCCS has formed a Commitments and Remedies Unit to independently assess the suitability of proposed commitments and remedies.
Typically, structural remedies require the divestment of overlapping assets or businesses that have led to the competition concern. The sale should be completed within a specified period and the CCCS must approve the proposed buyer before the sale of any business in order to ensure that it has the necessary expertise, resources and incentives to operate the divested business as an effective competitor in the marketplace.
Where appropriate, the CCCS may also consider other structural or quasi-structural remedies – for example, divestment of the buyer's existing business (or part of it) or an amendment to IP licences.
The CCCS will consider behavioural remedies in situations where divestments are considered to be impractical or disproportionate to the nature of the concerns identified. Where appropriate, the CCCS may also implement behavioural remedies to support structural divestment.
In CCCS Case No. 400/004/14 – the proposed acquisition by Seek Asia Investments Pte Ltd of the Jobstreet Business – the CCCS took the view that the significant market power possessed by the merged entity could give rise to non-coordinated effects post-merger. The CCCS accepted the following behavioural commitments, in addition to structural commitments, to address the CCCS's competition concerns:
|CCCS's competition concerns||Commitments accepted|
|Merged entity has the ability and incentive to provide loyalty rebates, exclusive contracts or bundling and tying of its products across its two brands that would prevent – or would be likely to prevent – customers from switching away.||Not to enter into exclusive agreements with employer and recruiter customers for a period of three years.|
|Merged entity has the ability and incentive to impose price increases.||To maintain the current pricing of services capped at present-day rate cards or current-day negotiated prices, subject to Consumer Price Index changes for a period of three years.|
In CCCS Case No. 400/003/15 – the proposed acquisition by ADB BVBA of Safegate International AB – the CCCS took the view that the proposed acquisition may significantly reduce the level of competition in the affected markets, and may lead to price increases and deterioration in quality or technical support. Following public consultation, the CCCS accepted the following behavioural commitments to address the CCCS's competition concerns.
|CCCS's competition concerns||Commitments accepted|
|Significant post-merger price increase due to substantial reduction of competition in the short to medium term.||Certain products and spare parts of the merged entity sold directly or indirectly to any airport operator for use in Singapore will be, for specified periods, subject to pre-merger prices and adjusted for inflation.|
|Reduced supply of spare parts and technical support to customers.||The merged entity commit to supply all required spare parts for specific products sold to any airport operator for use in Singapore for a period of 10 years from the completion of the proposed acquisition. The merged entity will also supply any technical support required for these products to the airport operators.|
|Possible 'lock in' of third-party contractors and suppliers in Singapore using exclusive agreements.||To facilitate entry by competing airfield lighting system suppliers into the Singapore market, for the period of four years commencing from the completion of the proposed acquisition, the merged entity commits not to enter into any agreements with any third-party contractor or supplier in Singapore that expressly prevent or have the effect of preventing third-party contractors or suppliers from carrying, promoting or offering alternative competing products and services.|
|Possible retroactive termination of, or jeopardising of, agreements concluded before the completion of the proposed acquisition.||The merged entity will ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to the sale of specific products entered into between the parties or a third party and an airport operator in Singapore on or before the completion date of the proposed acquisition shall continue in full force and effect post-transaction.|
|Ensuring compliance with the proposed commitments.||The merged entity will regularly provide the CCCS with an independent audit report.|
In CCCS Case No. 400/001/17 – the proposed acquisition by Times Publishing Limited of Penguin Random House Pte Ltd and Penguin Books Malaysia Sdn Bhd – the CCCS took the view that the proposed acquisition may lead to the merged entity having greater ability and incentive to discriminate or restrict supply of certain publishers' titles to other retailers. Following public consultation, the CCCS accepted the following behavioural commitments to address the CCCS's competition concerns.
|CCCS's competition concerns||Commitments accepted|
|The merged entity may refuse to supply or restrict supply to third-party retailers.||The merged entity will ensure that the full range of books will be supplied to third-party retailers.|
|The merged entity may discriminate by increasing price or offering unfavourable supply terms to third-party retailers.||The merged entity will ensure that the terms of supply of books to third-party retailers and the pricing of books will be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.|
|The merged entity may raise prices at the distribution level for all retailers to foreclose competition at the retail level.||The merged entity will ensure that prices at the distribution level will be fair and reasonable.|
In CCCS Case No. 500/001/18 – the proposed acquisition by Grab of Uber's Southeast Asian business and Uber's acquisition of a 27.5 per cent stake in Grab – the CCCS accepted the following behavioural commitments to address the CCCS's competition concerns.
|CCCS's competition concerns||Commitments accepted|
|'Lock-in' of drivers in the ride-hailing platform market using exclusive agreements.||Grab will ensure Grab drivers are free to use any ride-hailing platform and are not required to use Grab exclusively.|
|'Lock-in' of taxis in Singapore using exclusive agreements, which may limit choices for taxi drivers and riders.||Grab will remove exclusivity arrangements with any taxi fleet in Singapore.|
|Grab has the ability and incentive to increase prices faced by riders and increase commission rates for drivers.||Grab will maintain its pre-merger pricing algorithm and driver commission rates.|
vii Third-party access to file and rights to challenge mergers
Third-party access to file
There is no third-party access to file. For notified transactions under Section 57 or 58 of the Act, only the applicant and those persons whom the applicant identified in the application as being the other parties to the anticipated merger or the other parties involved in the merger, as the case may be, will be given an opportunity to inspect the documents in the CCCS's file. The CCCS may withhold any document to the extent that it contains confidential information, or which is an internal document.
It should also be noted that access to the CCCS's file is also only granted where an unfavourable decision is made (i.e., where the CCCS proposes to make a decision that an anticipated merger, if carried into effect, will infringe Section 54 of the Act, or a decision that a merger has infringed Section 54 of the Act).
Third-party rights to challenge notified mergers
During the CCCS's public consultation process at the start of its merger review (see Section IV.ii, below), third parties are invited to provide comments to the CCCS on the merger, via an invitation to comment on the CCCS website, and would be able to challenge a notified merger through this process.
Once the CCCS has issued a favourable decision, it will not take further action unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that:
- information on which CCCS has based its decision (which may include information on the basis of which a commitment was accepted) was materially incomplete, false or misleading;
- a party who provided a commitment failed to adhere to one or more terms of the commitment; or
- where a favourable decision was given for an anticipated merger to proceed, the merger so effected is materially different from the anticipated merger.
The CCCS would generally publish detailed decisions on the notified merger, the CCCS's grounds for issuing a favourable decision, as well as details of any commitments entered into. Accordingly, third parties may be able to challenge a merger after a favourable decision is issued, if they are able to support any of the grounds above for the CCCS to take further action in relation to the cleared merger.
Third parties have no right to appeal to the CCCS or the Competition Appeal Board (CAB) against any decision by the CCCS in respect of a merger situation or any direction imposed by the CCCS. Please see below for further information on appeals generally.
Third-party rights to challenge un-notified mergers
For un-notified mergers, third parties are able to make a complaint to the CCCS at any time pre- or post-closing of the merger. There is no limitation period on the time frame after which the CCCS may cease to have the power to investigate a transaction and to impose directions (e.g., for the transaction to be unwound or divestments to be made, or financial penalties). Each complaint will be assessed by the CCCS on its merits taking into account, among others, the strength of any supporting evidence. As discussed above, the CCCS has stated that it may be prompted to investigate following consistent complaints, or one or two substantiated complaints, from third parties.
Where the CCCS proposes to make an infringement decision, it will issue a notice setting out its provisional statement of decision. The applicant may then apply to the Minister for Trade and Industry for the merger to be exempted on the grounds of any public interest consideration (i.e., national or public security, defence and such other considerations as the Minister for Trade and Industry may gazette). Should the application to the Minister for Trade and Industry be unsuccessful, the CCCS will make a final decision on the merger, after having taken into account any oral and written representations made by the applicant.
There is a right of appeal to the CAB against any decision of the CCCS in respect of a merger situation or any direction (including interim measures) imposed by the CCCS. Any party to the notified merger may appeal the CCCS's decision in respect of a merger situation, while an appeal of a direction may be made by the party to which the CCCS issued the direction. The notice of appeal must be lodged within four weeks of either the date on which the appellant was notified of the contested decision or the date of publication of the decision (whichever is earlier). On the application of the appellant, the CAB may, in its discretion, extend the time frame for lodging the notice of appeal.
There is no right to appeal the CCCS's refusal to accept any commitments offered, but the parties may appeal against its refusal to vary, substitute or release existing commitments.
The parties to the CAB proceedings may further appeal the decision of the CAB to the High Court and thereafter to the Court of Appeal, but only on points of law and the quantum of the financial penalty.
As of 30 April 2019, the CAB had received 18 appeals and issued 10 decisions. Out of the 18 appeals received, one has been in respect of a merger situation. On 20 October 2018, Uber appealed against an infringement decision relating to the acquisition of its Southeast Asian business by Grab. In the 10 CAB decisions issued, the CAB generally upheld the findings and decisions of the CCCS. Of these, the CAB reduced the financial penalty that was initially imposed by the CCCS in seven decisions.2
ix Sectoral regulators
Industry sectors, such as telecommunications, media, post, airport, gas, electricity and financial sub-sectors have sector-specific laws or code of practice on competition, which include merger control laws or rules. These industry sectors are carved out from the merger control regime under Act in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the Act, and the sectoral regulators enforce their respective industry-specific competition rules. For example, the telecommunications sector is regulated by the Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunication Services and the media sector is regulated by the Code of Practice for Market Conduct in the Provision of Mass Media Services. Both these industries are regulated by subsidiary legislation which is industry-specific and includes prohibitions on unfair methods of competition, predatory pricing and general misuse of market power.
On cross-sectoral matters, the CCCS has stated in the CCCS Guidelines on the Major Provisions that the CCCS will work with the relevant sectoral regulator to determine which regulator is best placed to handle the case in accordance with the legal powers given to each. The lead will be taken by the agency best positioned, in terms of ability and scope, to investigate the alleged anticompetitive conduct and impose any necessary remedies. To prevent double jeopardy and to minimise the regulatory burden, the CCCS and the sector-specific regulators will cooperate and coordinate closely in dealing with the case.
iv OTHER STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
i Navigating multi-jurisdictional reviews
As the Act has an extra-territorial application, merger parties should factor in the self-assessment for Singapore when conducting the multi-jurisdictional analysis on where merger control filings should made, at an early stage of the transaction being contemplated. In particular, and as highlighted in Section II above, un-notified mergers continue to be a key area of focus for the CCCS in its merger enforcement efforts.
While the regime in Singapore is non-suspensory, to avoid deal and timing uncertainty (see Section III), merger parties may wish to budget the Singapore clearance time frame into the overall global regulatory approval time frame.
Other substantive and procedural issues to be considered in coordinating multi-jurisdictional review and filings are set out below.
Concept of 'control'
In determining whether the transaction may constitute a reviewable merger in Singapore, the structure of the transaction should be considered, bearing in mind that the concept of 'control' may differ across jurisdictions.
The 'control' test under the Act applies a similar concept of 'decisive influence' as that adopted under the European Union merger control regime.
Section 54(3) of the Act states that 'control' over an undertaking is regarded as existing if decisive influence is capable of being exercised with regard to the activities of an undertaking. The CCCS Guidelines on the Substantive Assessment of Mergers further illustrates that 'control' can be legal or de facto. Legal control arises where there is decisive influence and the CCCS considers that decisive influence is deemed to exist if there is ownership of more than 50 per cent of the voting rights. Where ownership is between 30 and 50 per cent of the voting rights of the undertaking, there is a rebuttable presumption that decisive influence exists.
However, the aforementioned thresholds are only indicative and it is necessary to consider all the relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Control may potentially be established at levels below these thresholds if other relevant factors provide strong evidence of control. De facto control may arise, for example, via financial arrangements, rights to veto strategic and commercial decisions of an undertaking, or other agreements such as long-term supply agreements.
In relation to minority shareholders, it is possible that decisive influence may be capable of being exercised by an undertaking which acquires a minority interest. For example, control may exist where minority shareholders have additional rights that allow them to veto decisions that are essential for the strategic commercial behaviour of the undertaking, such as the budget, business plans, major investments, the appointment of senior management or market-specific rights.
Within the CCCS Guidelines on the Substantive Assessment of Mergers 2016, the CCCS has clarified that the acquisition of minority shareholdings may lead to decisive influence, for example, depending on the patterns of attendance and voting at shareholders' meetings, resulting in a reviewable merger.
It is noteworthy that the CCCS issued an infringement decision on Uber's acquisition of a 27.5 per cent stake in Grab on 24 September 2018.
Consistency in merger assessment
Procedurally, the Form M1 requests for a waiver allowing the CCCS to exchange confidential information with competition agencies in other jurisdictions in respect of the notified merger, and the CCCS would generally expect such waivers to be granted. It is therefore critical to ensure that the key defences and competitive assessment of the relevant markets are consistent across jurisdictions in which the transaction is notified.
From a practical perspective, a centralised assessment on competitive effects, market definition, the parties' business and activities, and the transaction, which is used as a starting point to take into account jurisdiction-specific characteristics, would also minimise duplication and time required for the relevant business personnel to provide the information required.
As explained above, there is no requirement to suspend the implementation of a merger or anticipated merger before clearance by the CCCS. Parties that give effect to or proceed with mergers before CCCS clearance by the CCCS do so at their own commercial risk, as the CCCS has the power to unwind a merger that has already been effected and – in the case of intentional or negligent infringements – to impose financial penalties where it decides that the merger infringes the prohibition under Section 54 of the Act.
There is no express prohibition against, and it is therefore possible for merger parties to have, agreements to carve out Singapore while the transaction closes in other jurisdictions, as a means of managing the risk of financial penalties, directions or remedies imposed by the CCCS if the CCCS has concerns regarding the transaction specific to Singapore.
ii Publicity and confidentiality
Merger parties should be aware of the following considerations on publicity and confidentiality in making merger notifications to the CCCS. Such considerations may have particular implications for transactions involving listed entities, in terms of the disclosure and timing of the parties' own announcements.
Upon acceptance of a complete Form M1, together with the necessary supporting documents and prescribed fees, the CCCS will publish a summary of the merger on the public register on its website. The summary is provided by the applicant as part of the Form M1. The recent practice of the CCCS has been to issue a media release together with acceptance of the notification published on the public register.
Third parties are invited to provide comments to the CCCS on the merger, and any commitments contemplated, via an invitation to comment on the CCCS website.
The CCCS will update the status of its review on the public register – for example, when it is considering commitments, when it is proceeding to a Phase II review and when it makes a decision on the notified merger.
In submitting the Form M1, Form M2 and any other submissions to the CCCS, applicants are required to provide both confidential and non-confidential versions, as well as of the supporting documents. The CCCS is obliged under Section 89 of the Act to preserve the secrecy of confidential information that it receives.
The confidentiality claims of the applicants are subject to acceptance by the CCCS. The CCCS must also consider the extent to which disclosure is necessary for the purposes for which it proposes to make the disclosure.
If the confidentiality claims are accepted, the CCCS will not generally disclose any confidential information received to any other parties. Instead, the CCCS may use the non-confidential version of the submissions and supporting documents both to facilitate its discussion with third parties and to enable the CCCS to publish a non-confidential version of its decision without delay.
In the event that any confidentiality claims are not accepted by the CCCS, the CCCS will generally liaise with the applicant before any disclosure to consider how any detriment to the applicant could be minimised.
The CCCS will also generally provide applicants with the opportunity to review its decision to ensure that confidentiality claims and the accuracy of factual statements have been maintained before publishing a merger decision.
iii Special circumstances
Failing firm situations
The CCCS will consider, and has accepted, the failing firm defence in its assessment of mergers. On 28 November 2014, the CCCS announced the clearance of the proposed acquisition of Tiger Airways Holdings Limited by Singapore Airlines Limited. The CCCS agreed that the transaction would be less detrimental to competition in Singapore as compared to the scenario where Tiger Airways Holdings Limited would have exited its operations in the absence of the transaction, which would have also caused disruptions to passengers and to the connectivity of the Singapore air hub. This marked the first merger notification for which the CCCS granted clearance on the basis of the alternative exit argument.
To qualify for the failing firm defence, the CCCS has stated that the following conditions are required to be met:
- first, the firm must be in such a dire situation that without the merger, the firm and its assets would exit the market in the near future. Firms on the verge of judicial management may not meet these criteria, whereas firms in liquidation will usually do so. Decisions by profitable parent companies to close down loss-making subsidiaries are unlikely to meet these criteria;
- second, the firm must be unable to meet its financial obligations in the near future and there must be no serious prospect of reorganising the business, for example, a liquidator has been appointed pursuant to a creditor's winding-up petition; and
- third, there should be no less anticompetitive alternative to the merger. Even if a sale is inevitable, there may be other realistic buyers whose acquisition of the firm and its assets would produce a more competitive outcome. Any offer to purchase the assets of the failing firm at a commercially reasonable price, even if the price is lower than that which the acquiring party is prepared to pay, will be regarded as a reasonable alternative offer. It may also be better for competition that the firm fails and the remaining players compete for its customers and assets than for them to be transferred wholesale to a single purchaser.
The party claiming the failing firm defence is therefore required to provide supporting evidence that:
- the undertaking is indeed about to fail imminently under current ownership (including evidence that trading conditions are unlikely to improve);
- all re-financing options have been explored and exhausted; and
- there are no other credible bidders in the market (by demonstrating that the firm has made good faith and verifiable efforts to elicit reasonable alternative offers of acquisition).
A non-exhaustive list of evidence that the CCCS may consider when assessing a failing firm scenario could include:
- timelines of critical events and decisions of the failing firm;
- internal documents, such as briefing and board papers for the board or senior management;
- audited financial statements, including notes and qualifications in the auditor's report;
- projected cash flows, projected operating income or losses, projected net worth;
- credit status;
- reduction in the firm's relative position in the market; and
- changes in the firm's share price or publicly traded debt of the firm.
As the evidentiary threshold for claiming the failing firm defence is high, it is advisable for parties wishing to claim the failing firm defence to consider the available supporting facts and evidence early in the notification process.
Hostile takeover situations
The CCCS's regime allows for sole notifications to be made by a potential acquirer. In hostile takeovers, it may be difficult for the potential acquirer to obtain and provide certain information on the target undertaking in making a sole merger notification to the CCCS. In such situations, the CCCS has powers to issue formal information requests to the target for the CCCS's assessment of the merger.
v OUTLOOK and CONCLUSIONS
With the CCCS Guidelines on the Substantive Assessment of Mergers 2016 in effect since December 2016, the inclusion of additional forms of supporting evidence required by the CCCS, cases involving enforcement action and financial penalties being issued, and the initiation of ex officio investigations against non-notified mergers, indications are that there will be a stricter enforcement stance by the CCCS towards mergers in (or that have an effect in) Singapore.
A key development in the next 12 months will likely be the resolution of Uber's pending appeal against the CCCS's infringement decision relating to Grab's acquisition of its Southeast Asian business.
1 Daren Shiau, Elsa Chen and Scott Clements are partners at Allen & Gledhill LLP.
2 Of the remaining three decisions, the CCCS dismissed the appeal against the quantum of financial penalty in two cases, and set aside the appeal in the other case on the basis that the applicant had no right of appeal against the decision of the CCCS.