Miss Lucy
← All judgments

(i) Bandhan Financial Holdings Limited. (ii) Lathe Investment Pte. Ltd. (iii) Tangerine Investments Limited. (iv) Infinity Partners. — Combination C-2022/05/928

Competition Commission Of India1 August 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The identification of an overlap between combining enterprises depends on the scope of their activities, not on their sectoral classification, size, or the share of revenue from a particular activity. Revenue-based or de minimis exclusions are not criteria for identifying overlaps. Such factors may bear only on the assessment of the likely effect of a combination on competition. Where the activities of the parties to a combination are vertically interfacing, the assessment of appreciable adverse effect on competition proceeds on the parties' respective positions in the relevant markets, including whether each has a limited presence and whether other substantial players are active in those markets. A combination may be approved under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 where, having considered the information in the notice and the factors listed in Section 20(4), the Commission is of the opinion that it is not likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India in any relevant market. Such an approval remains liable to revocation if the information furnished by the notifying parties is found to be incorrect.

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

Judgment

As delivered

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA 1st August 2022 Notice under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 jointly given by Bandhan Financial Holdings Limited, Lathe Investment Pte. Ltd., Tangerine Investments Limited and Infinity Partners 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 13th May 2022, the Competition Commission of India (Commission) received a notice (Notice) under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act), jointly given by Bandhan Financial Holdings Limited (BFHL), Lathe Investment Pte. Ltd. (GIC Investor), Tangerine Investments Limited (CC Entity 1) and Infinity Partners (CC Entity 2). Hereinafter, CC Entity 1 and CC Entity 2 are collectively referred to as CC Entities. The Notice was given pursuant to the execution of the Share Purchase Agreement between IDFC Limited, IDFC Financial Holding Company Limited, IDFC Asset Management Company Limited (IDFC AMC), BFHL, GIC Investor and CC Entities on 6th April 2022 (IDFC AMC SPA); Share Purchase Agreement between IDFC Financial Holding Company Limited, IDFC AMC Trustee Company Limited (IDFC Trustee), BFHL, GIC Investor and CC Entities on 6th April 2022 (IDFC Trustee SPA); and Shareholders Agreement between BFHL, GIC Investor and CC Entities on 6th April 2022 (SHA). 2. The Commission, vide its communication dated 26th May 2022 and 24th June 2022, issued under Regulation 14(3) of the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, required the notifying party(ies) to remove defects in the Notice and furnish certain information relevant for the purpose of assessment of the Proposed Combination. Notifying party(ies)

furnished their submissions vide response dated 16th June 2022 and 12th July 2022.

3. The Proposed Combination envisages acquisition of 99.96% stake in IDFC AMC and 100% stake in IDFC Trustee (collectively, Target Entities) by a consortium comprising BFHL, GIC Investor and CC Entities. The Proposed Combination will be effected through the following interconnected acquisitions:

- BFHL will acquire ~60% stake in the Target Entities; - GIC Investor will acquire ~20% stake in the Target Entities; and - CC Entities will collectively acquire ~20% stake in the Target Entities.

4. BFHL, a part of the Bandhan group, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bandhan Financial Services Limited (BFSL). BFHL is registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-deposit accepting and systemically important Non-Banking Financial Company. Presently, BFHL holds approximately 40% stake in Bandhan Bank.

5. GIC Investor, a special purpose vehicle, is wholly owned by GIC (Ventures) Private Limited (GIC Ventures). GIC Investor is part of a group of investment holding companies managed by GIC Special Investments Private Limited (GICSI). GICSI is wholly owned by GIC Private Limited (GIC). GICSI was set up as the private equity and infrastructure investment arm of GIC. Both GIC Ventures and GIC are wholly owned by the Minister for Finance, Singapore.

6. CC Entity 1 is an investment company from Mauritius. It is wholly owned by ChrysCapital IX, LLC (ChrysCapital IX). ChrysCapital IX is a private equity fund set up by the ChrysCapital group (ChrysCapital). ChrysCapital IX is managed by Corpus Management Company IX, LLC. The ChrysCapital group, established in 1999, is a private equity group. ChrysCapital IX, LLC is the ninth fund of the ChrysCapital group. CC Entity 2 is a partnership firm. The key partners of CC Entity 2 are the partners and employees of ChrysCapital Advisors, LLP, the advisor to ChrysCapital IX. Key partners of CC Entity 2 are allowed to take all decisions pertaining to CC Entity 2 as per its partnership agreement. 7. IDFC AMC acts as the asset management company to IDFC Mutual Fund (IDMF). IDMF operates 45 mutual fund schemes in equity, debt, hybrid and liquid products. IDFC AMC also operates a portfolio management business. It provides discretionary portfolio management services to its clients. Further, IDFC AMC also acts as an investment manager under the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 to IDFC India

Equity Hedge Fund, a Category III Alternative Investment Fund. IDFC Trustee has been appointed as the trustee company of IDMF.

8. It has also been submitted that, based on the scope of services, relevance and limited nexus to India, GIC group has not considered, inter alia, investee companies which have revenue from India of less than a certain De-Minimis amount during the previous financial year.

9. In this regard, it is to be noted that, for the purpose of identification of overlaps, the Commission has not laid down the abovementioned criteria. The Commission further observed that, whether there exists an overlap, either horizontal or vertical, or complementarity between the activities of two or more enterprises, depends on the scope of activities performed by the enterprises, and not on attribution of the enterprise to a particular sector or industry, size of business, or contribution of revenue from particular activity in the overall revenue of the entity, etc. The abovementioned factors may, at most, be relevant for the assessment of likely effect of the Proposed Combination on competition, but do not dispense with the overlap identification requirement.

10. The Target Entities are engaged in the mutual fund business and Bandhan Bank is engaged in the business of distribution of mutual funds. Thus, the activities of Bandhan Bank and the Target Entities exhibit vertical interface. IDFC AMC and Bandhan Bank have a limited presence in the business of mutual fund business, and mutual fund distribution business in India, respectively. Furthermore, the mutual fund business is characterised by the presence of other players such as SBI Mutual Fund, ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund and HDFC Mutual Fund, and mutual fund distribution is characterised by the presence of other players such as SBI, Axis Bank and HDFC Bank.

11. Considering the facts on record, including details provided in the Notice given under Section 6(2) of the Act and assessment of the Proposed Combination based on the 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 in any of the relevant market(s), and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the same under Section 31(1) of the Act.

12. This order may be revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the notifying parties is found to be incorrect. 13. It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be confidential as the same has been used for the purposes of the Act in terms of the provisions contained in Section 57 of the Act.

14. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the notifying parties 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