Measuring the pulse of competition law in India the pulse of competition law in India - An EY Fraud...

An EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services report

Measuring the pulse of competition law in India

2 | Measuring the pulse of competition law in India - An EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services report

ContentsExecutive summary 5

Competition law in India 6

Emerging trends in India’s competition law 10 ► Need to alert organizations on importance of complying with 10

competition law

► e-Discovery in Competition Law-related investigations 12

► Dawn raids — a reality this year 13

► Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic analyses 14

► Penalty guidelines 15

► Lukewarm response to “Leniency” applications 16

► Concerns about data-sharing at Trade Association meetings 17

3Measuring the pulse of competition law in India - An EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services report |

ForewordWith the increasing impact of competition-related regulations in recent years in India, including rising fines, many large companies have been accused of cartelization or of abusing their dominant market positions. This has led to considerable time and money being spent on dealing with investigations by the Competition Commission of India - CCI in addition to battles fought through the appellate tribunal and courts, and mandated changes enforced in companies’ operations.

There are concerns about the penalties imposed by the Commission, the effectiveness of the competition-compliance programs of Indian and multinational companies in the country and the lack of general awareness of competition law among Indian companies.

In light of these evolving trends, we have conducted a survey to elicit the views of leading competition law jurists and practitioners in India and abroad. The areas covered include those mentioned above, as well as about competition economics, e-Discovery, dawn raids, competition risk management, leniency, the role of trade associations, etc., vis-à-vis practice of competition law in India. We are pleased to share the findings of our study in this report.

We would like to express our appreciation to the people and organizations that contributed to our research. Our report would not have had the same value without their support and that of all the others who made the survey successful.

We hope you find this report relevant and insightful.

Arpinder SinghPartner and Head - India and Emerging MarketsFraud Investigation & Dispute ServicesErnst & Young LLP


Executive summary• Rise in complaints filed to CCI: although relatively young in terms of its existence, the CCI has

received more than 500 complaints alleging violations of the Competition Act so far. These relate to “anticompetitive” agreements and organizations abusing their dominant position in domains as diverse as stock exchanges, travel, real estate, pharmaceuticals, mining, technology and entertainment in the private and public sectors. The number of complaints filed is increasing exponentially.

• Low awareness of need to comply with competition law among Indian corporates: EY’s survey indicates that more than 80% of Indian enterprises are unaware about competition law, the effect it seeks to achieve and the likely consequences of contravening it. In the case of multinational corporations (MNCs), most of them are aware about the Competition Act, and have adopted mechanisims to comply with its mandates. The training programs conducted by Indian corporations on competition law are generally inadequate.

• Dawn raids — a reality this year: under the Competition Act, the Director General — Investigations (DG), the investigating authority of the Commission in India, is empowered to conduct searches and seizures. There is a general perception in the market that industry may see many more dawn raids in the coming year. Accordingly, the need for e-Discovery will increase to enable review of electronic records in such investigations and subsequent disputes.

• Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic market analyses: our survey indicates that there is inadequate data available to conduct clear and practical economic analyses in antitrust situations. There is a huge demand for efficient data management to enable effective analyses of the market.

• Penalty guidelines and personal liability: the Commission has levied penalties on individuals for their role in the anticompetitive conduct of Indian companies. In many cases, it has not provided reasons for imposing different levels of penalty. In 90% of cases, enterprises have appealed to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).

• Lukewarm response to leniency applications: so far, only two leniency applications have been filed before the CCI. Our survey indicates that companies are still adopting a “wait and watch” approach and are not opting for leniency, in contrast with what happens in some mature jurisdictions.

• Concerns on data sharing at trade association meetings: our report indicates that trade associations constitute the collective voice of industry and need to be educated on competition law. There is a perception in the market that trade associations often play a role in potentially anti-competitive activities. Trade associations should not ask for, or share, data that can be used to abuse their position or act in an anticompetitive manner.


Competition law in India

The first competition law in India was the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. This was based on the command and control economic architecture prevalent at that time. It was a direct instrument for moderating the growth of big business and had no provision to regulate combinations and impose fines for violation of the law.

To introduce the post-liberalization philosophy of promoting competition rather than curbing monopolies, the Competition Act was passed in 2002. In 2009, the Commission was established under the Competition Act as an autonomous body with a chairperson and six members. Furthermore, an appellate body, COMPAT, was set up in 2009, with the final appeal lying with the Supreme Court of India.

Salient features of competition law in India:

• Ban anticompetitive agreements

• Prohibit enterprises from abusing their dominant positions

• Regulate combinations (acquisitions, acquistion of controls, mergers) that have, or are likely to have, an adverse effect on competition in India

Operations under the Competition Act

It has been more than five years since provisions relating to anticompetitive behavior and companies abusing their dominant position came into effect. Mergers and acquisitions statutes have been operational for about three years. Though relatively nascent, the CCI has received more than 500 complaints alleging violations of Sections 3 (anticompetitive behavior) and 4 (abuse of dominance in the market) of the act from domains as diverse as stock exchanges, travel, real estate, pharmaceuticals, mining, technology and entertainment, in both public and private sectors.

While administering the Competition Act, the CCI has imposed severe penalties on various enterprises, the most notable of these being its penalty of INR 17.73 billion on Coal India; INR 3.17 billion on United Phosphorus, Excel Crop Care and Sandhya Organics; INR 63 billion on cement companies in the a cement cartel case; INR 6.3 billion against one of the largest real estate players in India and INR 550 million against one of the largest stock exchanges in India, in abuse of dominance cases (upheld by the COMPAT). The CCI has also received some leniency applications for reduced penalties in a couple of cartel cases. With regard to mergers and acquisitions, around 200 proposals have been decided so far.

“There are lots of hopes and expectations from the CCI. From here onward, it can either become a well-respected regulator of the country or a defunct organization like MRTPC (Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission).”

Rahul Singh Research Associate, University of Oxford and Assistant Professor of Law & Director (Law),

Centre for Competition and Regulation, National Law School of India University, Bangalore


Particulars of information filed 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15

(till Mar’15) Total

Information filed by private parties

32 71 89 86 90 102 470

Suo moto (which means to take notice of facts on its own) cognizance by CCI

0 5 0 6 6 5 22

Matters referred by Central/State Government

0 0 4 2 7 8 21

Matters referred from the MRTPC

50 0 0 0 0 0 50

Total 82 76 93 94 103 115 563*

Anticompetitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (till Mar’15) Total

Cartel 1 13 3 1 6 24

Bid rigging - 1 3 2 - 6

Anticompetitive agreements or arrangements

* 6 12 10 18 46

Abuse of dominant position 2 9 7 22 32 72

Total^ 3 29 25 35 56 148

*Total information filed and available on the CCI website www.cci.gov.in

^Source: www.cci.gov.in

Chart 2: Cases referred by CCI for investigation and inquiry to the Director General

Chart 1: Information filed with the CCI

“Competition law jurisprudence is going to develop in two key areas during the course of this year: first, industry-specific concerns surfacing in the telecom sector, and second, the emergence of issues on intellectual property rights vis-à-vis competition law”

Balbir Singh Partner, DSK Legal


Cases referred by international antitrust authorities for investigation are provided below:

Chart 3: US Department of Justice — Antitrust Division and other federal agencies (investigation cases)

Anticompetitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 TotalSherman Act Section 1 — restraint on trade 46 47 31 25 149

Sherman Act Section 2 — monopoly 2 2 2 2 8

Others* 7 3 1 0 11

Total 55 52 34 27 168

* This category includes investigations of potential violations of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act, 1936, among other statutes.

Anticompetitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalTotal number of investigations of cases about which the European Competition Commission has been informed*

169 163 112 121 194 69 828

Cases in which an envisaged decision has been submitted by the National Competition Authority (NCA) during the period indicated**

94 88 91 60 101 27 461

Total 263 251 203 181 295 96 1289

*Investigations conducted on cases by the NCA or the ECC

Chart 4: European Competition Commission (investigations)

Year

Number of mergers filed before US antitrust authorities

— DoJ and Federal Trade Commission

Number of mergers filed before European Competition

Commission

Number of combinations filed before Australian Competition and Consumer Commission*

2010 1166 274 321

2011 1450 309 377

2012 1429 283 340

2013 1326 277 289

2014 NA 303 297

2015 NA 96 15

Total 5371 1542 1639

** Cases reaching the envisaged “decision” stage — only submissions from the NCA under Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on implementation of its rules on competition, laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

Source: www.justice.gov

Source: www.ec.europa.eu

Chart 5: Merger cases referred to other competition regulatory authorities

**

*Annual Reports for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission – www.accc.gov.au

** As available upto 21 May, 2015 - registers.accc.gov.au

Source: www.justice.gov, www.ftc.gov, www.ec.europa.eu


Chart 6: Cases before the COMPAT“The regulatory trends revealed by this survey reflect what we have seen more generally around Europe. In particular, incentives for market participants to report aberrant conduct, an increasingly proactive and sophisticated regulatory approach and the severity of penalties imposed on corporates and individuals mean that directors and other corporate officers in market-sensitive positions ignore competition regulations at their peril. In this context, it is surprising and concerning that an estimated 80% of India enterprises appear to be under- informed and hence under-prepared in this important area of compliance.”

Richard Indge Partner,

Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services, EY, London

Source: CCI Annual Reports for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014

Appeals filed with the COMPAT

CCI orders upheld by the COMPAT or appeal

disallowed

2010 2011 2012 2013

2014

1

17

142

2010 2011 2012 20132014

8*0

7**21***

*11 appeals pending at end of 2011 ** 14 appeals pending at end of 2012 ***118 appeals pending at the end of 2013

36

42 17


Emerging trends in India’s competition law

Need to alert organizations on importance of complying with competition law EY’s survey indicates that more than 80% of Indian enterprises are unaware of competition law, what it seeks to achieve and the likely consequences of their contravening it.

The survey also reveals that most multinational corporations (MNCs) in India are aware of the country’s competition law and have adopted mechanisms to comply with it.

Most MNCs use the compliance frameworks of their parent companies abroad. They have “Indianized” and tailored these to comply with India’s competition law.

70% of respondents believe that Indian enterprises do not have control mechanisms in place and their documents (vendor contracts, supply and distribution agreements, etc.) are not verified at the grass-root level for compliance with competition law. There is therefore an urgent need to train the employees of such organizations and instill in them the importance of complying with the mandates of the law.

The fines levied by the CCI and the competition law awareness measures taken by it, indicate the immediate need for companies to review their existing business practices for compliance under the Competition Act.

At various forums and meetings, the Commission has been asking companies to put in place compliance programs in order to ensure that their business practices do not violate the law.

According to the CCI, the creation of a compliance system will help organizations to detect violations earlier and then take the requisite preventive steps.

Incentivizing existent compliance programs and practices

Creation of such a system by the CCI may help companies avoid fines or mitigate their severity, pre-empt the possibility of concluding potentially void agreements, and reduce the cost and negative effects of litigation and regulatory intervention.

Given the tangible benefits that compliance programs offer, antitrust authorities such as the Department of Justice have been vigorously emphasizing the importance of incentivising these programs. This would prompt companies to diligently oversee the implemented compliance programs.

Companies should assign executives to report directly to the Board of Directors or internal auditors in order to maintain some independence from management. They need to also ensure that senior management is held liable for improper conduct of those whom they oversee. Internal policies must be clear, well-articulated and visible throughout an organization. Any policy is ineffective until employees are properly trained on what to do when any issues arise. Compliance programs need to include incentives to drive action and violations should be appropriately penalised.


Elements of a competition compliance program A well-formulated and streamlined compliance program should address the business realities faced by enterprises.

Advantages of maintaining a competition compliance program

Broadly, a competition compliance program offers the following advantages:

• It helps to reduce costs and the negative aspects of litigation and connected matters.

• It helps enterprises to detect potential violations (if any) at an early stage and take remedial measures, and thereby provides them with a competitive advantage.

• It helps companies enhance their reputation and build goodwill.

• It inculcates a culture of compliance throughout organizations.

• It recognizes the severity of the punishment that may be meted out for violation and that enterprises contravening the provisions of the Competition Act may suffer damage to their reputation, thereby nullifing years of careful marketing and brand development.

“Compliance programs will have to be custom-made for each enterprise. An “off the shelf” program is very unlikely to serve the purpose and should be modeled on the competition law jurisprudence of India.”

Karan S. Chandhiok Partner, Chandhiok & Associates

“A compliance program should be implemented to ensure that it is of practical use on a day-to-day basis. A sophisticated legal treatise may not be the appropriate document for employees who look after the work on a day-to-day basis and may not be legally trained.”

Vyapak Desai Partner, Nishith Desai & Associates


Major costs of non-compliance

While having compliance programs in place may be beneficial for organizations, non-compliance, if detected, may prove to be costly for them. As the CCI is invested with the power to conduct investigations and dawn raids in order to enforce the law, the possibility of being convicted is high for non-compliant enterprises. The consequent results may be one or more of the following:

• Heavy fines for non-compliance: in the case of anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance, a 10% fine may be levied on the company’s average turnover for the preceding 3 years. In the case of a cartel, the penalty can be up to three times its profit for each year of its violation of regulations or 10% of its turnover for each year of its violation, whichever is higher. The CCI can also divide an enterprise for abuse of dominance.

• Parties approaching the COMPAT in appeal for compensation may need to deposit large amounts, depending on the type of violation.

• Legal and other costs may be involved in litigating cases of infringement of competition law.

“We would commend a competition compliance program… We would also suggest a high-level competition compliance committee to drive the agenda in your organizations. Last, but by no means least, the compliance program should receive not only your attention but should also be put up for periodic review by the board of directors. On our part, we are thinking of requesting Securities and Exchanges Bureau of India (SEBI) to include effective competition compliance in their listing guidelines under Clause 49.

Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson, Competition Commission of India, an

excerpt from the welcome address speech at the “Roundtable on Competition Compliance for Good

Corporate Governance” on 24 January 2013

e-Discovery in competition law-related investigationsMore than 90% of information is stored in the form of electronic documents today. This number goes higher every day, showing that businesses are increasingly relying on electronically stored documents. Further, although organizations have years of experience in formulating and implementing strategies to manage paper documents, it needs to be seen how companies deal with management of electronic documents since it is a relatively new phenomenon.

of the respondents stated that the use of e-Discovery tools will be useful in competition-law related cases and disputes.

90%

“Enterprises that have entered into agreements or are in the process of negotiating agreements, especially agreements with competitors, should take precautions to ensure that they remain on the correct side of law.”

Samir R. Gandhi Partner, AZB & Partners


“If the amendment in the Competition Act is passed, the investigation process will become very challenging for the CCI and the office of the DG, especially in relation to procedural aspects of law. e-Discovery services may also witness a flurry of activity in relation to the collection of primary and secondary evidence.”

Manas Kumar Chaudhri Partner, Khaitan & Co.

“Under the Competition Act, the CCI has all the powers to conduct search and seizures (dawn raids). The amendment to the Competition Act is not an answer. It is really up to the will, approach and the courage of the CCI to conduct the dawn raid operations and exercise its powers under the Competition Act.”

Dushyant A. Dave Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

According to 90% of the respondents, there is a need for organizations to use e-Discovery solutions to examine their electronic records in anticompetitive cases (e.g., in response to requests from the Commission or to search for anticompetitive activity to help them formulate leniency applications).

e-Discovery technology enables enterprises to organize their collection of data efficiently and identify responsive information and cull non-responsive Electronically Stored Information (ESI).

Enterprises from all industries are appreciating the need to maintain strong record-management systems. e-Discovery services are helpful when an adjudicating authority is in the process of evaluating evidence and passing orders. Although e-Discovery services are at a nascent stage in India, they are becoming popular, particularly due to the rise of corporate litigation.

There is a need for specialist agencies to dig out relevant data to respond to the investigation questionnaire circulated by the DG.

After the DG has circulated the investigation questionnaire to the entity, techniques such as filtering of keywords, clustering of concepts, analyses of domains and de-duplication should be used. This can significantly shrink the size of a responsive data set.

Dawn raids: a reality this yearThe shock is always enormous when a competition authority raids companies anywhere in the world. Under the Competition Act, the DG is empowered to conduct searches and seizures. Pursuant to these provisions, the DG needs to procure an order from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, to undertake a search or seizure, or both. To date, the DG has not had to procure a search and seizure order, so the effectiveness of this provision is untested.

Respondents were asked about the efficiency of existing legal provisions relating to the DG’s power to search and make seizures. They were also questioned on the proposed amendment in the Competition Act, whereby the chairperson of the CCI will be able to pass an order to the DG to conduct dawn raids.

According to 75% of the respondents, dawn raids will increase the level of compliance to a great extent.


Need for empirical survey and analysis

It is important for companies to take a decision on how they will present data in ways that best reflect their business and operational structures.

An effort should be made to systematize relevant data from the competition point of view to facilitate assessment of exposure to anticompetitive practices and resultant risks.

Gathering, reviewing and benchmarking data to support an objective evaluation of whether a company’s antitrust program is appropriate to prevent, detect and respond to antitrust violations is essential.

In this regard, accurate data (for example: tracking employees who have attended antitrust law training or monitoring of data sheets) can be used to measure whether a company’s antitrust compliance program structure and controls are appropriately designed, and are being effectively applied throughout its operations. It can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these controls and improve them where required.

“Enterprises should be encouraged to maintain accurate records of data proactively. The CCI should be more proactive in asking for data or studies from the parties involved so as to form a sound analysis on a case-to-case basis.”

Ramji Srinivas Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

“There should be creation of several state competition commissions to spread the awareness of benefits of competition laws and to help the local traders and people understand (at the grass-root level) about the impact and reach of competition law.”

R. Prasad former member,

Competition Commission of India

Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic analysesAccording to 75% of the respondents, there is no comprehensive data available for conducting a practical economic analysis in an antitrust situation.

According to 25% of the respondents, the problem arises due to the lack of qualitative data available for reasoned economic analyses.

Merger cases referred to the competition authorities are shown below:

2011

17 85

2012

64

2013

Total combination filings

69

2014 270Number of

combination filings

Chart 7: Premerger combination filings before CCI

Accurately tabled data is generally not maintained by companies and therefore the available data is difficult to assess.

35

2015 (till Apr’15)


In the case mentioned above:

“It was held that being multiproduct companies, only the ‘relevant turnover’ ought to be considered while imposing the penalty, i.e., the turnover generated from the product under investigation, rather than the overall turnover of the enterprise.“

Rahul Goel Partner, Dhir & Dhir

“Since the penalties imposed by the CCI are high, it would be prudent to have something like an informal guidance mechanism to understand or take a view of CCI about activities that could be classed as anticompetitive”

Shashivansh Bahadur Partner, Dua Associates

Penalty guidelines — need of the hour Penal provisions under the Competition Act are fundamental for enforcement of the law. The question of whether a penalty can be so large as to endanger the very existence of a company was repeatedly highlighted by respondents during our survey.

Penalties imposed under the Competition Act are typically financial in nature. In some cases, the CCI imposed on enterprises penalties on some senior officials in enterprises.

So far, penalties have been imposed by the CCI, but in 90% of the cases, enterprises have not paid the fines levied and have appealed to the COMPAT. Therefore, the effect of the penalties is yet to be gauged. However, the COMPAT has upheld the decision of the CCI on imposition of a penalty of INR6.3 billion against one of the largest real estate players in India and INR550 million against one of the largest stock exchanges in India. Both have appealed to the Supreme Court.

Method of calculating penalties and the need for guidelines

So far, the CCI has been inconsistent in levying penalties.For example, in the cement cartel case, it imposed a penalty amounting to 0.5% of the profit made by cartelizing cement companies, 5% average turnover in the NSE case, 7% in the DLF case and 6% in the BCCI case. In the Assam Drug Dealers Association case, it imposed a penalty at the maximum rate of 10% of its average turnover. In the Bengal Chemist and Druggist Association case, the penalty imposed was 10% of its average turnover for the association and its officer bearers and 7% for its executive committee members. The Commission has not provided reasons for levying different levels of penalties, and most of these have been appealed against to COMPAT on these grounds.

Relevant turnover

In a recent appeal against the decision of the CCI in the Aluminium Phosphide Tablet case, the COMPAT, by its decision of 29 October 2013, introduced the concept of “relevant turnover” in Indian competition law jurisprudence.

The critical issue in the appeal was that of calculation and imposition of penalties. The COMPAT reiterated the doctrine of proportionality while imposing penalties, emphasizing that the CCI must not only give reasons while imposing these, but must also consider all relevant factors, including the financial health of a company and the likelihood of it being forced to close down on account of the significant penalty. However, the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court at present. It is important to see how the Supreme Court interprets the word “turnover” under the Competition Act.

Chart 8: Cases in which penalties were imposed

20112010

3

6.86

-

-

12

72.162012

3

18.322013

10

26.652014

(till Oct’14)

Number. of cases

Amount of penalty (in billion)

28Total cases

124Total amount of

penalty


Lukewarm response to leniency applicationsThe leniency program is used by the competition authorities as a key tool to detect infringements by cartels, by providing total immunity from fines or less than full immunity to participants in cartels in return for their informing the competition authority about the existence of the cartel.

The Competition Act and the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations 2009 has set out the leniency policy. Under the lesser penalty regulations, leniency provisions cover undertakings (or persons) that have been members of a cartel and are willing to provide information to the CCI and cooperate with it in terminating the cartel’s activities. Under the Competition Act, cartel activities include agreements of any kind entered by undertakings or associations of undertakings that are engaged in an identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services.

The respondents were asked about the efficiency of existing legal provisions relating to the leniency policy in the Competition Act. According to 80%, the CCI needs to instil more confidence in corporate organizations to elicit more leniency applications.

90% of respondents believe that industry is concerned about issues relating to confidentiality and the discretionary power of the CCI.

According to 70% of the respondents, there is a problem with the manner in which penalty provisions are drafted under the Competition Act, and there is a lack to clear guidelines and procedures for parties approaching the CCI for leniency.

“The leniency application process is very porous and will have to be monitored carefully for proper enforcement. The problem lies in the way the lesser penalty provisions are worded. The provision empowers the Commission to impose lower penalties if it ‘may’ deem fit, in contrast to the US antitrust provisions, which mandate the Department of Justice to necessarily (the word used in the US laws is ‘shall’) grant immunity from penalties.”

Amitabh Kumar Partner, JSA


Concerns on data sharing at trade association meetingsTrade associations are unique forums at which competitors from the same industry or sector meet to discuss issues of common interest, find common solutions and further their common commercial or professional interests. Their activities have, however, been subject to close scrutiny by the CCI.

Despite their many pro-competitive aspects, trade associations continue to be cautious about stepping outside the boundaries mandated by the competition law. This is because, by definition, trade associations offer opportunities for repeated contact between direct competitors and involve cooperation among them in the same trade. Casual discussions of prices, quantities, customers, territories and market shares, terms of sales, advertising restrictions and future business strategies, can lead to agreements or an informal understanding. This could easily spill over into illegal coordination, cartelization or formation of anticompetitive agreements.

The respondents were asked about the role of trade associations in cartel cases. All of them (100%) felt that there is no doubt that trade associations add value to the industries and sectors in which they operate, but they may also facilitate anticompetitive conduct — inadvertently or deliberately.

100%

All the respondents (100%) suggested that the Commission should encourage all associations and their members to put in place competition compliance programs, and that associations should also try to develop guidelines on best practices for their members in order to create awareness of acceptable and unacceptable behavior under the Competition Act.

100%

According to 80% of the respondents, trade associations are the collective voice of industry and need to be educated on the nuances of the Competition Law. Trade associations are not only at risk of violating the law, but can also benefit from it. They need to be aware of how they can take advantage of opportunities offered by the Competiton Act to benefit their industry. They can identify marketplace-related issues and can often help to resolve these by liaising between the CCI and industry. They may draw the attention of the Commission to anticompetitive practices emanating from government laws or policies and urge it to take up this issue with the Government as part of its advocacy.

80%


Number of interviews - geography

North Region 26

Delhi / NCR 15

Haryana 3

UP 2

Rajasthan 1

Madhya Pradesh 1

Western Region 22

Maharashtra 17

Gujarat 4

Goa 1

South Region 15

Karnataka 3

Andhra Pradesh 2

Telangana 1

Tamil Nadu 9

Eastern Region 2

Odisha 1

Chhattisgarh 1

Total 65

Between February 2014 and May 2014, we conducted 65 interviews with senior decision-makers, former regulators across India covering some of the major companies across various sectors impacted by new competition law regime in India. The polling sample was designed to elicit the views of executives and former officials of the competition regulatory agency with responsibility for advising and managing compliance of competition laws in India, mainly Chief Financial Officers (CFO), Chief Compliance Officers (CCO), general counsel and heads of compliance.

Number of Interviews - job title and sector

Job title

Partner (Law Firms) 20

General Counsel 20

Partner (Professional Firms) 5

Head of Business Unit / Division 5

CFO 4

CEO 5

Company Secretary 4

Former Regulators / Government officials 2

Sector

Automotive 15

Beverages 2

Consumer products / retail / wholesale 2

Mining and metals 10

Life Sciences 5

Professional Firms and Services 25

Government officials 2

Real estate 4

Methodology

Participant profile – segmentation by region, job title and sector


Contacts

EY officesAhmedabad2nd floor, Shivalik Ishaan Near C.N. VidhyalayaAmbawadiAhmedabad - 380 015Tel: + 91 79 6608 3800Fax: + 91 79 6608 3900

Bengaluru6th, 12th & 13th floor“UB City”, Canberra BlockNo.24 Vittal Mallya RoadBengaluru - 560 001Tel: + 91 80 4027 5000 + 91 80 6727 5000 Fax: + 91 80 2210 6000 (12th floor)Fax: + 91 80 2224 0695 (13th floor)

1st Floor, Prestige Emerald No. 4, Madras Bank RoadLavelle Road JunctionBengaluru - 560 001Tel: + 91 80 6727 5000 Fax: + 91 80 2222 4112

Chandigarh1st Floor, SCO: 166-167Sector 9-C, Madhya MargChandigarh - 160 009 Tel: + 91 172 671 7800Fax: + 91 172 671 7888

Arpinder SinghPartner and Head - India and Emerging MarketsDirect: + 91 12 4443 0330Email: [email protected]

Sandeep BaldavaPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 0817Email: [email protected]

Vivek AggarwalPartnerDirect: + 91 12 4464 4551Email: [email protected]

Mukul ShrivastavaPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 2777Email: [email protected]

ChennaiTidel Park, 6th & 7th Floor A Block (Module 601,701-702)No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani Chennai - 600113Tel: + 91 44 6654 8100 Fax: + 91 44 2254 0120

HyderabadOval Office, 18, iLabs CentreHitech City, MadhapurHyderabad - 500081Tel: + 91 40 6736 2000Fax: + 91 40 6736 2200

Kochi9th Floor, ABAD NucleusNH-49, Maradu POKochi - 682304Tel: + 91 484 304 4000 Fax: + 91 484 270 5393

Kolkata22 Camac Street3rd floor, Block ‘C’Kolkata - 700 016Tel: + 91 33 6615 3400Fax: + 91 33 2281 7750

Anurag KashyapPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 0373Email: [email protected]

Yogen VaidyaPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 2264Email: [email protected]

Rajiv JoshiPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 1569Email: [email protected]

Dinesh MoudgilPartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 0584Email: [email protected]

Mumbai14th Floor, The Ruby29 Senapati Bapat MargDadar (W), Mumbai - 400028Tel: +91 22 6192 0000Fax: +91 22 6192 1000

5th Floor, Block B-2Nirlon Knowledge ParkOff Western Express HighwayGoregaon (E)Mumbai - 400 063Tel: + 91 22 6192 0000Fax: + 91 22 6192 3000

NCRGolf View Corporate Tower BNear DLF Golf CourseSector 42Gurgaon - 122002Tel: + 91 124 464 4000Fax: + 91 124 464 4050

6th floor, Wing A & B,Worldmark 1, Aero cityOpp. Holiday Inn, Mahipalpur,New Delhi - 110037Tel: + 91 11 6671 8000Fax: + 91 11 6671 9999

Jagdeep SinghPartnerDirect: + 91 80 6727 5300Email: [email protected]

Amit RahanePartnerDirect: + 91 22 6192 3774Email: [email protected]

4th & 5th Floor, Plot No 2B,Tower 2, Sector 126,NOIDA 201 304Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. IndiaTel: + 91 120 671 7000Fax: + 91 120 671 7171

PuneC-401, 4th floor Panchshil Tech ParkYerwada (Near Don Bosco School)Pune - 411 006Tel: + 91 20 6603 6000Fax: + 91 20 6601 5900

EY refers to the global organization, and/or one or more of the independent member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited

Ernst & Young LLP

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

About EY’s Fraud Investigation & Dispute ServicesDealing with complex issues of fraud, regulatory compliance and business disputes can detract from efforts to succeed. Better management of fraud risk and compliance exposure is a critical business priority — no matter what the industry sector is. With our more than 3,400 fraud investigation and dispute professionals around the world, we assemble the right multidisciplinary and culturally aligned team to work with you and your legal advisors. We work to give you the benefit of our broad sector experience, our deep subject matter knowledge and the latest insights from our work worldwide.

Ernst & Young LLP is one of the Indian client serving member firms of EYGM Limited. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com/in.

Ernst & Young LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 in India, having its registered office at 22 Camac Street, 3rd Floor, Block C, Kolkata - 700016

© 2017 Ernst & Young LLP. Published in India. All Rights Reserved.

EYG no. AU3374

ED None

This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.

YTG

Measuring the pulse of competition law in India the pulse of competition law in India - An EY Fraud...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring the pulse of competition law in India the pulse of competition law in India - An EY Fraud...