Jointly by British American Tobacco p.l.c., London; BATUS Holdings Inc., USA; Flight Acquisition Corporation, USA and Reynolds American Inc., USA — Combination C-2017/02/484
- Case No.C-2017/02/484
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commission approves a notified combination under s. 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 where, on the notice and the facts on record, assessed under the factors in s. 20(4), the combination is not likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Where a party to a combination has no business presence in India, whether directly or indirectly, the combination does not give rise to horizontal overlaps or vertical relationships in India, and that absence is a ground for finding no likely appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. An approval under s. 31(1) stands revoked if the information furnished by the parties is later found to be incorrect.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
30.03.2017 Notice filed under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 jointly by British American Tobacco P.L.C., Batus Holdings Inc., Flight Acquisition Corporation, and Reynolds American Inc
CORAM: Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson
Mr. Augustine Peter Member
Mr. U. C. Nahta Member
Legal Representative: M/s Khaitan & Co. LLP
Order under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act
1. On 15.02.2017, the Competition Commission of India (“Commission”) received a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) jointly given by British American Tobacco P.L.C. (“BAT”), Batus Holdings Inc. (“BATUS”), Flight Acquisition Corporation (“Sub”), and Reynolds American Inc (“RAI”) (Hereinafter BAT, BATUS, SUB and RAI are collectively referred to as the “Parties”), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated 16.01.2017 (“Merger Agreement”) executed by and between the Parties.
For Greater Good 2. The proposed combination envisages merger of BAT and RAI (“Proposed Combination”).
3. BAT, incorporated in England and Wales, is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of cigarettes and other tobacco products. BAT does not have any direct/physical business presence in India. As submitted, BAT has indirect non-controlling interest in ITC Limited (“ITC”) and VST Industries Limited (“VST”) (both of whom are in the business of manufacture of cigarettes and other tobacco products in India) through its overseas subsidiaries.
4. BATUS is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BAT, incorporated in United Status of America. BATUS is a holding company, which owns all issued shareholding of the Sub.
5. Sub, incorporated in the United States of America on 12 January 2017 for the purposes of the Proposed Combination, is not engaged in any business activities either globally or in India.
6. RAI, incorporated in United States of America, is engaged in the business of manufacture of cigarettes and other tobacco products. RAI does not have any direct/indirect operations in India.
7. The Commission observed that both BAT and RAI, through their respective subsidiaries, manufacture cigarettes and other tobacco products. However, since RAI has no business presence in India, the Proposed Combination does not lead to any horizontal overlaps/vertical relationships in India.
8. Considering facts on record and details provided in the notice given under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act and assessment of the Proposed Combination on the basis of factors stated in sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act, the Commission is of the opinion that the Proposed Combination is not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in For Greater Good India and therefore, the Commission, hereby, approves the same under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act.
9. This order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Parties is found to be incorrect. 10. The information provided by the Parties is confidential at this stage in terms of and subject to provisions of Section 57 of the Act.
11. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the 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