BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
The First National Bakery Co Ltd. [1994] IECA 379 (21st November, 1994)
Competition
Authority decision of 21 November, 1994, relating to a proceeding under Section
4 of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/689/92E - The First National Bakery Company Ltd.
Decision
No. 379
Introduction
1. A
shareholders agreement between IAWS Group plc (IAWS) and a number of other
legal and natural persons for the establishment and operation of the First
National Bakery Co. Ltd. (First National), was notified to the Competition
Authority on 30 September 1992. The agreement provided for the establishment
of First National and the acquisition by it of several companies involved in
the baking industry in return for the issue of shares in First National. The
agreement included certain non compete provisions. The notification requested
a certificate or, in the event of a certificate being refused, a licence.
The
Facts
(a)
The Subject of the Notification
2.
The
notification relates to an agreement dated 11 August 1989 between IAWS, Mr.
Thomas O'Connor, Mr. Andrew O'Connor, Mr. Matthew O'Connor, Mr. Michael
O'Connor and Ms. Nellie Keady, (The Western Shareholders), Mr. Thomas P.
Williams, Ms. Marie Williams and Mr. Brian Williams, (The Williams
Shareholders), Kielys Bread Company (1970) Limited (Kielys 1970), Rahoon
Bakeries Limited (Rahoon), First National, Snowfire Limited (Snowfire), Tommy
Tucker (Wexford) Limited (Tommy Tucker), Kielys Bread Company Limited (Kielys),
Rahoon Bakeries (Galway) Limited (Rahoon Galway), Brennans Wonderloaf Limited
(Brennans) and P. Keane & Sons Limited. By virtue of the notified
agreement, the parties established a company, First National,
[1]
in which each of them would participate for the purpose of carrying on the
business of baking in the future. The agreement included some non-compete
provisions. It was notified to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under
the terms of the Mergers Act (1978) and no order was made.
(b)
The Parties
3. IAWS
is a public limited company quoted on the Irish Stock Exchange. It has,
through its subsidiaries, been a major supplier of materials and services to
the Irish agricultural and food industries for over 90 years. The group's
principal operating businesses consist of fish processing, fertilisers, animal
feed, energy products and food. Its turnover for the year ended 31 July 1993
was £402m. All of the parties other than IAWS were at or about the time
of agreement, either directly or through companies owned by them, engaged in
the business of baking bread.
(c)
The Arrangements
4. The
notification relates to a shareholding agreement, dated 11 August 1989. At the
time of the agreement the parties, other than IAWS,were either directly or
indirectly engaged in the business of baking at different locations within the
State. Under the terms of the agreement they agreed to cease competing with
one another and to transfer control of their respective baking businesses to
First National which in turn acquired the entire trade and fixed assets of the
companies involved. In return they received shares in First National. At the
time of the notification IAWS held 50% of the shares in First National with the
remainder being held by the various other parties. The Williams Shareholders
ceased to be shareholders in First National on 3 January 1992, Rahoon ceased to
be a shareholder on 6 March 1992 and Kielys 1970 ceased to be a shareholder on
28 April 1992.
5. Under
clause 2 of the agreement each of the parties agreed that they would not during
the period commencing on the date of the agreement and terminating two years
after the date upon which they ceased to be shareholders in the company:
(i)
in the Republic of Ireland directly or indirectly either on its own behalf or
in conjunction with or on behalf of any other person, firm or company carry on
any business in competition with the baking business of the company;
(ii)
in relation to the business of the company either on their own behalf or in
conjunction with or on behalf of any person firm or company, directly or
indirectly solicit or endeavour to solicit or obtain the custom of any person
firm company or corporation that is at any time during the specified period or
in the 12 months prior to the agreement was a customer of the business or
solicit or entice away any officers, manager or servant of the business. They
also agreed to use every endeavour to ensure that their employees would also
not do any of these things while they remained employed by them.
These
restrictions were stated not to restrict, limit or curtail the Western
Shareholders or Kielys in relation to their holding of shares in Crossguns
Bakery Limited.
(d)
Submissions of the Parties.
6. IAWS
submitted detailed arguments in support of the issue of a certificate. These
may be briefly summarised here. They argued that at the time of the agreement
the parties had not anticipated the enacting of legislation prohibiting
anti-competitive agreements. They argued that the agreement was not
anti-competitive and that the restrictive provisions went no further than was
necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the parties. They
argued that the Competition Act should not have retrospective effect with
regard to agreements concluded prior to the coming into operation of the Act
but containing non-competition covenants which continued to run. They referred
to the Authority's decisions in Nallen/O'Toole,
[2]
Chemical International Finance Limited/Irish Life Assurance plc
[3],
and Cambridge/Imari
[4],
together with the EC Commission decision in Reuter/BASF in support of their
arguments.
Assessment
(a)
Section
4(1)
7. Section
4(1) of the Competition Act states that 'all agreements between undertakings,
decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as
their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition
in trade in any goods or services in the State or in any part of the State are
prohibited and void'.
(b) The
Undertakings and the Agreement
8. Section
3(1) of the Competition Act defines an undertaking as ´a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service.' IAWS is a corporate body engaged for gain in a wide variety of
business activities. All of the other parties were, at or about the time of
this agreement, either directly or indirectly engaged in the production of
bread and other confectionery products for gain and were therefore
undertakings. The notified arrangements constitute an agreement between
undertakings.
(c) Applicability
of Section 4(1)
9. Although
described as a shareholding agreement, the arrangements were in many respects
akin to a sale of business since they resulted in First National acquiring
control of the baking operations owned by the other parties. The transactions
whereby First National acquired the assets and goodwill of the baking
businesses of the parties other than IAWS had been discharged by performance
before the Act commenced. The property which was the subject of the agreement
had been transferred. In the Authority's view, the prohibition in Section 4(1)
only applies to a current or continuing contractual commitment or one entered
into subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. As the transfer of the
assets was discharged prior to the commencement of the Act, that aspect of the
arrangements does not come within the scope of Section 4(1).
10. Such
arguments do not, however, apply to the non-compete clauses which continued to
operate after the Act came into force. These clauses which have been described
above operate from the date of the agreement until two years after any
shareholder disposed of its shares in the joint venture. The Authority has
stated in a number of previous decisions that it believes that a restriction on
competing with the business for a period is not anti-competitive provided it is
for no longer than is necessary to secure the transfer of the goodwill of the
business. It has indicated that in general it considers a period of two years
as adequate for this purpose. Such considerations also apply where a partner
in a business disposes of his shareholding to the other partners. The parties,
in their notification, referred to the arrangements as a joint venture. Van
Bael and Bellis
[5]
point out that under EU competition law, in the case of a joint venture,
non-compete restrictions which continue after the termination of the joint
venture are regarded as infringements of Article 85(1) and have generally been
refused an exemption. The Authority believes that the present arrangement is
more akin to a sale of business or merger than a true joint venture. For this
reason it considers that the two year restriction on the shareholders competing
with the business after they cease to be shareholders does not offend against
section 4(1).
The
Decision
11. In
the Authority's opinion, IAWS and the various other parties to the notified
agreement are undertakings within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act, and the notified shareholders agreement constitutes an
agreement between undertakings. The Authority believes that, as the
arrangements which resulted in the acquisition by First National of the baking
businesses of the parties other than IAWS were effectively completed prior to
the commencement of the Competition Act, that aspect of the agreement does not
come within the scope of Section 4(1) of the Act. The non-compete provisions
were ancillary to the main agreement and do not offend against section 4(1).
The
Certificate
12. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the shareholders agreement between IAWS Group plc, Mr.
Thomas O'Connor, Mr. Andrew O'Connor, Mr. Matthew O'Connor, Mr. Michael
O'Connor and Ms. Nellie Keady, (The Western Shareholders), Mr. Thomas P.
Williams, Ms. Marie Williams and Mr. Brian Williams, (The Williams
Shareholders), Kielys Bread Company (1970) Limited (Kielys 1970), Rahoon
Bakeries Limited (Rahoon), The First National Bakery Company, Limited, Snowfire
Limited (Snowfire), Tommy Tucker (Wexford) Limited (Tommy Tucker), Kielys Bread
Company Limited (Kielys), Rahoon Bakeries (Galway) Limited (Rahoon Galway),
Brennans Wonderloaf Limited (Brennans) and P. Keane & Sons Limited for the
establishment, operation and control of The First National Bakery Company
Limited, (notification no. CA/689/92E), notified to the Competition Authority
on 30 September 1992 under Section 7, does not offend against
Section 4(1) of
the
Competition Act, 1991.
For
the Competition Authority
Patrick
Massey
Member
21
November, 1994
[ ] 1The
company has since been renamed Irish Pride Bakeries Limited.
[ ]2
Competition Authority decision no.1, 2 April 1992.
[ ]3
Competition Authority decision no. 17, 29 April 1993.
[ ]4
Competition Authority decision no. 24, 21 June 1993.
[ ]5
I. Van Bael and J. F. Bellis, 'Competition Law of the EEC', 2nd edition, at
point 511.
© 1994 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1994/379.html