The Competition Commission of India (CCI) plays an important role in regulating mergers and acquisitions (M&As) to ensure that they do not result in anti-competitive consequences in the Indian market. This regulatory authority ensures that mergers do not stifle competition by concentrating market power in the hands of a few companies. In this article, we look at how the CCI approaches remedies for possibly anti-competitive mergers, what types of remedies it uses, and some prominent instances that exemplify these methods.
The Competition Act of 2002 governs competition law in India, and it requires that any acquisition, merger, or amalgamation (collectively referred to as “combinations”) that exceeds specific asset or turnover limits be notified to the CCI. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act provide that combinations with a “appreciable adverse effect on competition” (AAEC) are forbidden and deemed unlawful if not corrected.
Mergers that surpass particular asset or turnover levels must be informed in advance to the CCI, and the examination procedure usually unfolds in two stages:
Phase I: The CCI determines if the combination creates any early competitive concerns. In circumstances of modest concerns, the parties may provide voluntary changes to avoid a Phase II examination. An extra 15 days may be provided to review these changes.
Phase II: If issues continue, a thorough inquiry is begun, and the CCI may propose changes to address AAEC concerns.
Remedies play an important role in allowing mergers to happen while reducing competition concerns. These remedies can be structural, such as divestitures, or behavioral, such as restrictions on post-merger activity. In other circumstances, hybrid remedies are used to resolve complicated competition issues comprehensively.
There are three main remedies; Structural remedies entail changing the structure of the merging organizations to maintain competition. This usually entails divesting overlapping assets, business divisions, or intellectual property to allow other competitors to continue to operate efficiently.
For Example: In the **Metso/Outotec case, the CCI allowed the merger with a quasi-structural remedy in which the parties transferred their India business to a suitable buyer via an irrevocable license. This decision allowed new competitors to develop in the iron ore pelletizing (IOP) industry, where Metso and Outotec had a considerable market share. On the other hand Behavioral remedies seek to change the behavior of the merging firms after the merger in order to avoid anti-competitive practices. These remedies often involve requirements for nondiscriminatory access, restrictions on information exchange, or pledges to specific operational behaviors.
For example, in the Canary/Intas case, the CCI was concerned about potential anti-competitive cooperation among overlapping pharmaceutical interests. To avoid this risk, the parties agreed to remove some directors and refrain from exercising their veto rights on specified strategic decisions. The CCI accepted this proposal as it immediately addressed the risk of coordinated conduct . And lastly Hybrid remedies include structural and behavioral components, particularly in circumstances when one technique alone may be insufficient. For example, if substantial market concentration threatens to hinder competition but the merging parties’ operational flexibility is also a worry, a mix of asset sales and operational constraints may be used.
Example: The **PVR/DLF Utilities merger is renowned for its hybrid solution approach. The CCI detected a possibility of price hikes due to strong market concentration in certain regions. PVR offered to exclude certain assets from the merger scope and agreed to a temporary halt to expansion in important markets. These pledges addressed competition concerns and allowed the transaction to continue.
1. In Bayer/Monsanto This merger of two agricultural behemoths raised serious AAEC issues, as both companies had dominating positions in major markets for agricultural traits and seeds. The CCI allowed the transaction only after Bayer agreed to license specific technologies and goods in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) manner. This behavioral cure allowed Bayer’s competitors to continue obtaining crucial seed qualities and technology, ensuring market competition
2. In Sony/ZEE The CCI expressed worries over Sony’s acquisition of a share in Zee, which formed India’s largest broadcasting organization with enormous impact across multiple entertainment industries. A structural solution was implemented, necessitating the divestment of three popular television channels. This measure curtailed Sony-Zee’s market clout and prevented prospective price hikes in the broadcasting sector.
3. AGI Greenpac’s acquisition of Hindustan National Glass prompted worries about a potential monopoly in container glass manufacture. AGI Greenpac voluntarily liquidated one of HNG’s plants to reduce market share and meet CCI concerns about monopolistic behavior in the container glass area.
4. TRIL Urban Transport The Tata Sons Group, through its affiliate TRIL Urban Transport, attempted to buy a share in GMR Airports, potentially leading to anti-competitive foreclosure of competing airlines due to Tata’s influence in the aviation sector. The CCI accepted a behavioral remedy preventing Tata from installing directors on GMR’s board or accessing commercially sensitive information, ensuring a level playing field for competing airlines (29:4, source).
The Competition Amendment Act 2023 included additional measures that increased the CCI’s flexibility in processing merger remedies. This provision enables parties to propose voluntary changes even before the CCI issues a prima facie opinion. It also gives the CCI the authority to recommend solutions during the initial review phase, greatly streamlining the process.
These revisions reflect the CCI’s policy of actively tailoring its remedies to unique market conditions, demonstrating a preference for early interaction with merging businesses to address competition concerns.
The CCI’s approach to merger remedies illustrates its commitment to eliminating anti-competitive impacts while allowing beneficial mergers to proceed with appropriate protections in place. Merging parties must foresee potential competitive issues and consider offering early changes. This strategic planning can make evaluations go more smoothly and reduce the possibility of Phase II investigations taking longer than expected.
The CCI’s agility in developing case-specific remedies, combined with its readiness to cooperate with international antitrust authorities, demonstrates its commitment to getting remedies that meet India’s market demands. As more cross-border mergers and acquisitions occur, particularly in quickly consolidating industries, the CCI’s proactive role in maintaining competitive fairness is likely to shape a more strong regulatory environment in India’s competitive landscape.
Author Bio
