Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ageas Insurance International NV — Combination C-2022/06/944

Competition Commission Of India15 July 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the acquirer already holds control of the target, and the target's market position in the relevant segment is not significant, a proposed acquisition of further shares that increases the acquirer's holding is not likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India, and the Commission may approve it under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. Where the Commission has assessed the combination by reference to the factors in Section 20(4) of the Act, and on the material before it finds no likelihood of an appreciable adverse effect on competition, the combination is approved under Section 31(1).

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA15th July, 2022

Notice under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, filed by Ageas Insurance International NV CORAM: Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member

Order under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. On 22nd June, 2022, the Competition Commission of India (Commission) received a notice under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) filed by Ageas Insurance International NV (Acquirer) regarding its proposed acquisition of shareholding in Ageas Federal Life Insurance Company Limited (AFLI). In relation to the Proposed Combination, the concerned parties have entered into a share purchase agreement on 19th May, 2022 (SPA) and a shareholders agreement (SHA) on 20th June, 2022.

2. The Acquirer is already a shareholder of AFLI and it currently holds 49% of the equity share capital of AFLI. By way of the Proposed Combination, the Acquirer proposes to acquire further shareholding of around 25% in AFLI from another shareholder viz. IDBI

Bank Limited (IDBI). Thus, the Acquirer would hold 74% of the shareholding of AFLI after the Proposed Combination.

3. The Acquirer is the ultimate holding company of the Ageas group, which is an international insurance group having business activities in Europe and Asia. The products and service offered by the Ageas group globally include life insurance products, general non-life insurance products, reinsurance services and distribution of insurance products.

4. AFLI is engaged in the business of providing life insurance products in India under the categories of term plan, child plan, ULIP plan, saving plan, retirement solutions, health plan, group plan, online plans, etc. AFLI is jointly controlled by Ageas, IDBI and Federal Bank Limited with each of them having shareholding of 49%, 25% and 26%, respectively.

5. It is observed that the Acquirer group is present in insurance business in India through the AFLI and Royal Sundaram Co Limited. While AFLI is engaged in provision of life insurance business, Royal Sundaram is engaged in sale of general insurance products. The Commission notes that the Acquirer is already in control over ALFI. Further, the market position of ALFI in life insurance business is not significant. Thus, the Proposed Combination does not appear to raise any competition concern.

6. Considering the material on record, including the details provided in the notice and the assessment of the Proposed Combination based on factors stated in Section 20(4) of the Act, the Commission is of the opinion that the Proposed Combination is not likely to have any appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Therefore, the Commission approves the Proposed Combination under Section 31(1) of the Act.

7. This order may be revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Acquirer is found to be incorrect.

8. The information provided by the Acquirer shall be treated as confidential in terms of and subject to the provisions of Section 57 of the Act.

9. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Acquirer accordingly.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free