When this approval is sought, it is important, as a balance should be maintained between the CCI review of the dynamics and the time-sensitive insolvency process.
Also read: There is no debate with the widespread emphasis of CCI’s order on the use of WhatsApp data
Recently, Supreme Court in case of case Independent Sugar Corporation Limited vs Girish Shriram Juneja and others It is believed that the need for prior approval of CCI under IBC is mandatory for resolution schemes that are eligible as ‘combination’ under the Competition Act.
In other words, a resolution plan cannot be approved, if all the resolution schemes preceded before the CCI approval (if necessary) (if necessary), have not been considered before the Committee of Lakiners (COC).
An analysis of CIRPS in the last five years shows that the approval of resolution plans by COCS has been mostly received before the CCI approval. Given the decision, the process of successful resolution applicants can be seen as a violation of the law.
To complete this newly interpreted timeline, the Supreme Court stated that a resolution applicant can file a CCI application regarding a resolution scheme, such as in the stage of submitting the ‘Expression of Interest’. This, in fact, will lead more CCI applications for the same insolvency process as all possible resolution applicants will need to contact the Commission in the initial stage of the process.
While significant attention has been given to this aspect of the decision, seems to have fallen between the cracks, the merger under the Competition Act is observing the comments of the top court on various procedural aspects of the control process. These can change the installed practices a lot.
Communication with parties for combination: Most provisions of Indian merger control regime, especially related to filing and communication obligations, are addressed to parties for combination.
However, according to the CCI protocol, based on the contractual agreement between transaction parties and following the practices at the international level, all communications from the CCI have been sent to the commonly informed party – which is the acquisition in terms of acquisition and in terms of divers in terms of acquisition and merger and amalgams.
The target enterprise in a merger filing attains the entirety of such communication or parts (at the discretion of the acquisition), depending on the contractual agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court verdict potentially harasses this protocol.
Also read: Why CCI matters digital players to protect customers
In its judgment, the Supreme Court noticed that CCI’s failure in issuing a show-causal notice to all relevant parties (in particular, target company) formed a major procedural lapse.
The court explained the term ‘parties for combination’, which is not prohibited only for the acquired, gives weight payable to the plurality associated with the word ‘parties’. It was observed that bypassing this statutory requirement, the fairness and perfection of the discovery process was reduced.
Keeping these comments in mind, the CCI’s merger review process is likely to have a growing participation of target enterprises, which will require another aspect that will require dealing with transactions parties.
However, for all regular communication except a show-causal notice, the CCI is likely to continue respecting the contractual system of transactions parties and send communication based on such contracted conditions.
Possible changes in CCI’s modification structure: Under Indian merger control regime, transactions informed to CCI that can also adversely affect competition in any relevant market, can also be modified. suo moto By CCI or voluntarily transaction parties.
The amendment structure allows parties to remove CCI’s concerns and subjugate the transactions for the implementation of agreed amendments. Parties can submit relevant amendments to both CCIs before the show-summer notice and in response.
In the decision, a possible adverse effect on competition was taken to exceed the interests of immediate parties, requiring comprehensive consultation with the public on the transaction and data collection process.
According to the remaining decision, by reading this observation of the Supreme Court, it shows that the transaction Prima facie CCI’s approach would necessarily have to undergo a procedural requirement of a public consultation on various aspects of the deal to adversely affect competition and for any amendment that transactions to parties.
This observation is not in dishes with a reading of the amendment structure under the Competition Act, something that is noted correctly in his unsatisfactory decision by Justice SVN Bhatti.
Overview also creates disagreement between the related rules related to the Competition Act and the combinations, given that the regulations clearly include a competent provision, which allows the transaction parties to propose their response as well as amendment to the show-cause notice and allows the CCI to approve a transaction at this level.
Also read: Insolvency Claim: Pre-NCLT arbitration requires a mentality change in its favor
If this interpretation was to be adopted, then transactions Prima facie An adverse effect on competition pose may experience a long -term and complex merger review process. In addition, it will probably increase the increased legal costs and stretch deadline due to a comprehensive review, which can affect the ease of trade in India, merge and acquire a moist on activity and foreign investments.
It is undisputed that Supreme Court’s decision regarding the time of CCI approval for a resolution scheme K Ruparu COC approval will have a significant impact on CIRP. The observation of the court on various procedural aspects of the merger control regime of India also has the ability to significantly change the protocol systematic for filing related to the merger.
The author, respectively, is partner, senior colleagues and associates with competition law practice in Triagle.