Notice given by TPG SF VI Pte Limited — Combination C-2014/07/187
- Case No.C-2014/07/187
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A combination is approved under s.31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 where the Commission, assessing it on the factors in s.20(4), is of the opinion that it is not likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Where the acquirer's portfolio companies in India carry on no activities similar to those of the target and its subsidiaries, and any vertical relationships between them are insignificant, the proposed combination raises no competition concern and is not likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. An approval under s.31(1) is without prejudice to the parties' other legal or statutory obligations, and it stands revoked if the information furnished by the acquirer is found to be incorrect.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. On 1st July, 2014, the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) received a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, filed by TPG SF VI Pte Ltd (‘TPG’ or Acquirer). The notice was filed pursuant to a Securities Purchase Agreement between TPG and Sutherland Global Holdings Inc. (‘Sutherland’) on 25th June, 2014.
2. The proposed combination relates to an acquisition of up to 34.5 per cent of equity share capital of Sutherland on a fully-diluted basis by TPG. As a part of the proposed transaction, Sutherland would (a) issue convertible preference shares to the TPG and (b) concurrently redeem certain equity shares from some of its existing shareholders. The proposed combination falls under Section 5 (a) of the Act.
3. The acquirer, incorporated under the laws of Singapore is a subsidiary of TPG group which is a global private investment group making investments in companies across a broad spectrum of industries and geographies.
4. Sutherland incorporated in the United States, is a global provider of business process outsourcing (‘BPO’) services to various industries. It has four indirect subsidiaries in India. These are Sutherland Global Services Private Limited (‘Sutherland Global’), Sutherland Development Company Private Limited (‘Sutherland Development’), Adventity Global Services Private Limited (‘Adventity’), and Apollo Health Street Limited (‘Apollo Health’). Sutherland Global and Adventity provide BPO services to various businesses. Apollo Health provides BPO services to health insurance
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA For Greater Good companies, hospitals, physician groups, and similar service providers. Sutherland Development is in the business of developing IT Parks, Special Economic Zones and infrastructure facilities.
5. In terms of Regulation 14 of the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 (“Combination Regulations”), vide letter dated 8th July, 2014, the Acquirer was required to remove certain defects and provide information/document(s) latest by 15th July, 2014. The Acquirer submitted their final reply vide letter dated 10th July, 2014.
6. As stated above, the acquirer is a subsidiary of TPG group which is a global private investment firm. Sutherland is a global provider of BPO services to various industries. As per the information provided by the parties, it has been observed that none of the portfolio companies of the TPG group in India are engaged in similar activities as that of Sutherland or any of its subsidiaries. Further, although, as stated by the parties some of the portfolio companies of TPG have some vertical relationship with Sutherland and its subsidiaries, however, such relationship is found to be very insignificant and does not raise any competition concerns.
7. The Commission in its meeting held on 30th July 2014, considered the facts on record and the 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 an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the same under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.
8. This approval is without prejudice to any other legal/statutory obligations as applicable.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA For Greater Good
9. This order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Acquirer is found to be incorrect.
10. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the acquirer accordingly.
(Ashok Chawla) Chairperson (M.L.Tayal) Member (S. L. Bunker) Member (Sudhir Mital) Member (Augustine Peter) Member
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