1. Dr. S Chakravarthy1 GREETINGS TO PARTICIPANTS AT THE NATIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP ON COMPETITION POLICY AND LAW ACCRA, GHANA 27-28 APRIL 2010

2. Dr. S Chakravarthy2 HORIZONTAL RESTRAINTS PRESENTATION BY Dr. S. CHAKRAVARTHY (Profession : Civil Servant) Formerly, Member, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, Member, High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law And Member of Committee for Drafting the Law. Presently, Adviser/Consultant Competition Policy and Law HYDERABAD INDIA

3. Dr. S Chakravarthy3 C O M P E T I T I O N……. IS A DYNAMIC CONCEPT IS AN AMALGAM OF FACTORS THAT STIMULATE ECONOMIC RIVALRY IS A TOOL TO MOUNT MARKET PRESSURE TO PENALISE LAGGARDS AND TO REWARD THE ENTERPRISING

4. Dr. S Chakravarthy4 COMPETITION POLICY - GOALS PRESERVATION AND PROMOTION OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS EFFICIENCY IN PRODUCTION AND ALLOCATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES INNOVATION AND ADJUSTMENT TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH

5. Dr. S Chakravarthy5 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL RESTRAINTS IN GHANA BILL IN GHANA COMPETITION BILL, THERE IS NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF HORIZONTAL RESTRAINTS/AGREEMENTS THERE IS MENTION OF VERTICAL AGREEMENTS THERE IS ALSO MENTION OF AGREEMENTS RESTRICTING COMPETITION – THESE COULD CONSTITUTE HORIZONTAL RESTRAINTS

6. Dr. S Chakravarthy6 AGREEMENTS OUTLAWED AGREEMENTS THAT PREVENT, RESTRICT OR DISTORT COMPETITION ARE OUTLAWED THIS APPLIES TO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS, ORAL AGREEMENTS, UNDERSTANDINGS AND CONCERTED PRACTICES

7. Dr. S Chakravarthy7 AGREEMENT – A DEFINITION AGREEMENT INCLUDES ANY ARRANGEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING OR ACTION IN CONCERT AGREEMENT NEED NOT BE FORMAL OR IN WRITING AGREEMENT NEED NOT BE ENFORCEABLE BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

8. Dr. S Chakravarthy8 TWO TYPES AGREEMENTS ARE OF TWO TYPES 1. HORIZONTAL  AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ENTERPRISES COMPETING IN THE SAME MARKET (OFTEN PER SE) 2. VERTICAL  AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ENTERPRISES AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION PROCESS (RULE OF REASON)

9. Dr. S Chakravarthy9 RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES HORIZONTAL RESTRAINTS AGREEMENTS, DECISIONS AND CONCERTED PRACTICES WHICH PREVENT, RESTRICT OR DISTORT COMPETITION IN GHANA ARE PROHIBITED. THEY INCLUDE, INTER ALIA: FIXING PURCHASE OR SELLING PRICES (CARTELS) LIMITING/CONTROLLING PRODUCTION, TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT OR MARKETS SHARING MARKETS OR SUPPLY BID-RIGGING THESE PRACTICES ARE PER SE ILLEGAL [SEE SECTION 21(2)]

10. Dr. S Chakravarthy10 VERTICAL AGREEMENTS VERTICAL AGREEMENTS ARE ALSO PROHIBITED. THEY INCLUDE: TIE-IN ARRANGEMENT EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT EFUSAL TO DEAL RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE DISCRIMINATION IN SUPPLY OR ACQUISITION THESE PRACTICES WILL BE ADJUDICATED UPON UNDER THE RULE OF REASON (SEE SECTION 22)

11. Dr. S Chakravarthy11 UNDERSTANDING – AN ILLUSTRATION SIEM REAP IN CAMBODIA - POPULAR TOURIST TOWN, HOUSING THE FAMOUS ANGKOR VAT TEMPLES. THREE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FROM PHNOM PENH, CAPITAL OF CAMBODIA TO SIEM REAP – BOAT, ROAD AND AIR. 8 BOAT COMPANIES - THE PRICE FOR ONE-WAY TRAVEL IS 40,000 RIELS (ABOUT US $ 10). BECAUSE OF COMPETITION PRICES PLUMMETTED 20,000 RIELS. THE BOATERS ENTERED INTO AN UNDERSTANDING TO FIX PRICES AT 40,000 RIELS. THEY FURTHER AGREED THAT THEY WOULD NOT COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER AND WOULD SHARE THEIR DEPARTURE SCHEDULES. THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT BUT ONLY AN UNDERSTANDING. THE UNDERSTANDING CONSTITUTES A CARTEL AGREEMENT.

12. Dr. S Chakravarthy12 CARTEL : DEFINED A CARTEL IS SAID TO EXIST WHEN TWO OR MORE FIRMS, THAT ARE NOT DE FACTO OR DE JURE CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT, ENTER INTO AN EXPLICIT AGREEMENT TO FIX PRICES TO ALLOCATE MARKET SHARE OR SALES QUOTAS, OR TO ENGAGE IN BID-RIGGING IN ONE OR MORE MARKETS.

13. Dr. S Chakravarthy13 CARTEL IN GHANA BILL INCLUDES A FORMAL OR INFORMAL ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS, SELLERS, DISTRIBUTORS, TRADERS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO BY AGREEMENT AMONGST THEMSELVES, LIMIT, CONTROL OR ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, SALE OR PRICE OF, OR TRADE IN GOODS OR PROVISION OF SERVICES MEMBERS MAY AGREE ON PRICES, TOTAL INDUSTRY OUTPUT, MARKET SHARE, ALLOCATION OF CUSTOMERS, ALLOCATION OF TERRITORIES, BID-RIGGING ETC.

14. Dr. S Chakravarthy14 BENEVOLENCE AND MALEVOLENCE CARTELS ARE MALEVOLENT BUT CAN BE BENEVOLENT HARDCORE CARTELS ARE MALEVOLENT Eg: R&D CARTELS MAY BRING ABOUT SYNERGIES AND DYNAMIC EFFICIENCIES – ARE BENEVOLENT

15. Dr. S Chakravarthy15 HARDCORE CARTELS DEVASTATE CONSUMERS AVERAGE ILLEGAL GAIN FROM PRICE FIXING IS ABOUT 10% OF THE SELLING PRICE HARDCORE CARTELS IMPACT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MORE GENERALLY HARDCORE CARTEL ACTIVITY EMANATES FROM DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MOST STUDIES POINT TO A 20 TO 40% FALL IN PRICES AFTER COLLAPSE OF THE CARTEL

16. Dr. S Chakravarthy16 IMPORTS OF 12 CARTELISED PRODUCTS BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 1990-2000 YEAR US $ billion

17. Dr. S Chakravarthy17 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE BAR CHART CUMULATIVELY IMPORTS EXCEEDED US$ 80 BILLION SINCE 1990 PRICE OVERCHARGE ASSUMED AT 20 - 40% DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PAID US$ 12.5 TO 25 BILLION MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE FOR THE 12 PRODUCTS EVEN THIS IS AN UNDER ESTIMATE

18. Dr. S Chakravarthy18 VITAMIN CARTEL - IMPACT WORLD MARKET DIVIDED BY THE CARTEL DURING 90s PRICE OVERCHARGE RESULTED 90 COUNTRIES IMPORTED VITAMINS DURING 90s DAMAGES 10 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SUFFERED OVERCHARGE OF US $ 660 MILLION INDIA SUFFERED US $ 25 MILLION ALL 90 IMPORTING COUNTRIES IN THE AGGREGATE SUFFERED OVERCHARGE OF US $ 2700 MILLION

19. Dr. S Chakravarthy19 DAMAGES INFLICTED BY CARTELS ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CARTELS IN HEAVY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, STEEL AND ALUMINUM DAMAGES ZIMBABWE - US $ 44 MILLION KENYA - US $ 34 MILLION SOUTHERN AFRICA CUSTOMS UNION- US $ 270 MILLION

20. Dr. S Chakravarthy20 BID RIGGING BID RIGGING IS A HORIZONTAL AGREEMENT AND PER SE ILLEGAL. BID RIGGING MEANS ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERSONS OR ENTERPRISES, ENGAGED IN IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR PRODUCTION OR TRADING OF GOODS OR PROVISION OF SERVICES, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING COMPETITION FOR BIDS OR ADVERSELY AFFECTING OR MANIPULATING THE PROCESS FOR BIDDING.

21. Dr. S Chakravarthy21 MEDICAL OXYGEN SUPPLY – A BID - RIGGING CASE  FOUR FOREIGN COMPANIES, NAMELY, AIR LIQUIDE (FRANCE), PRAXAIR (US), AGA (GERMANY) AND INDURA (CHILE) WERE THE SUPPLIERS OF MEDICAL OXYGEN TO BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN ARGENTINA.  THESE COMPANIES FORMED A CARTEL AND ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO INDULGE IN BID RIGGING AND TO DISTRIBUTE AND DIVIDE CUSTOMERS AMONG THEMSELVES.  AS A RESULT OF BID RIGGING AND COLLUSION, HOSPITALS AND CONSUMERS WERE FORCED TO PAY HIGH PRICES. AND THE CARTEL MEMBERS ENJOYED ILLEGALLY HIGH PROFITS.  THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE FOUR COMPANIES PROSECUTED AND LEVIED WITH FINES AMOUNTING TO US $24 MILLION.

22. Dr. S Chakravarthy22 LIMITING PRODUCTION AND RESTRICTING TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW SARABHAI M CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED ENTERED INTO A TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW-HOW AGREEMENT WITH ITS OVERSEAS COLLABORATOR, E. MERCK A.G., PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISION OF KNOW-HOW BY MERCK TO SARABHAI. THE AGREEMENT STIPULATED THAT MERCK BY ITSELF OR ITS LICENSEES (LIKE SARABHAI) SHOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MANUFACTURE CERTAIN ITEMS (ABOUT 520 OUT OF 600 ITEMS) IN INDIA SARABHAI’S REQUEST FOR TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW-HOW FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN PHARMACEUTICALS AND VITAMINS WAS TURNED DOWN BY MERCK. THE MRTP COMMISSION HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON COMPETITION BECAUSE OF THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW–HOW AND WAS ALSO A BARRIER TO ENTRY TO OTHER INTENDING MANUFACTURERS.

23. Dr. S Chakravarthy23 MANUFACTURING CARTEL DIVIDING THE MARKET THREE TIMKEN CORPORATIONS (AMERICAN, BRITISH AND FRENCH) MANUFACTURE ANTI-FRICTION BEARINGS. THEY ALLOCATED TERRITORIES AMONG THEMSELVES AND COOPERATED IN FIXING PRICES. THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THEIR ACTION IN CONCERT WAS TO AVOID COMPETITION. THE COURT FURTHER RULED THAT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LEGALLY SEPARATE PERSONS AND COMPANIES TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION AMONG THEMSELVES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AND THAT COLLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE TRADING OPERATION (ALLOCATIONS) WOULD ATTRACT COMPETITION LAW.

24. Dr. S Chakravarthy24 BOYCOTT TRENCHES COMPETITION LAW KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION (KCDA) IS A PHARMA TRADE ASSOCIATION IN BANGALORE, INDIA. THE ASSOCIATION ISSUED A CIRCULAR THAT NO DRUG MANUFACTURER COULD APPOINT A STOCKIST/WHOLESALER WITHOUT OBTAINING A NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) FROM IT. FURTHERMORE, KCDA WAS MAKING FREQUENT AND RECURRENT BOYCOTT CALLS OF VARIOUS MANUFACTURERS CITING TRADE ISSUES WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP WITH THE MRTP COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION OBSERVED THAT BECAUSE OF THE INSISTENCE ON THE NOC BY KCDA, THE MANUFACTURERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS. THE CALL OF BOYCOTT BY KCDA OF ANY DEALER, IN ANY MANNER, WRITTEN OR ORAL, RESTRICTED COMPETITION AND THE PRACTICE WAS STOPPED BY KCDA.

25. Dr. S Chakravarthy25 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON ANTI- COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS HORIZONTAL AGREEMENTS CAN HAVE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EFFECTS WEIGH PRO AND ANTI COMPETITIVE EFFECTS TO ARRIVE AT A JUST CONCLUSION VERTICAL AGREEMENTS ARE NOT AS SERIOUS AS HORIZONTAL ONES HERE TOO WEIGH PRO AND ANTI- COMPETITIVE EFFECTS TO ARRIVE AT A JUST CONCLUSION

26. Dr. S Chakravarthy26 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE “PARADOXICALLY, THE ENDURING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY LIE INCREASINGLY IN LOCAL THINGS – KNOWLEDGE, RELATIONSHIPS AND MOTIVATION THAT DISTANT RIVALS CANNOT MATCH.” MICHAEL E. PORTER

27. Dr. S Chakravarthy27 THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION