ANTIMONOPOLY COMMITTEE OF UKRAINE INVESTIGATES RETAILERS' ACTIVITIES

The AMCU's ongoing investigation into the food industry

Following our policy of supporting current and potential clients at all stages of their activity in Ukraine, we would like to draw your attention to the investigation into the wholesale and retail food industry actively conducted by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (hereinafter - the "AMCU").

Also, please be informed that according to the AMCU's Report 2011 published on the AMCU's website on March 14, 2012, the AMCU's attention is as always focused on the food industry (including milk and dairy products, meat products, vegetables, chicken eggs, grain, sunflower oil, bakery products, buckwheat, sugar, food concentrates, mineral water, juice, tea and coffee), where it conducts comprehensive audits.

Investigation into retailers' activities

As of September 2012 the AMCU has been investigating the retail industry. In particular, the AMCU analyzes the activities of large retailers in respect to their compliance with the requirements of antitrust and competition law.

The ground for the AMCU's investigation was the retailers' use of mechanisms similar to those that could have led to an economically unjustified rise in food prices.

In the AMCU's opinion, such activities of retailers may contain signs of anti-competitive concerted actions. Under Ukrainian law, anticompetitive concerted actions shall mean similar actions (omissions) of business entities on the commodity market, which have led or may lead to prevention, elimination or restriction of competition in the event that the analysis of the situation on the commodity market denies any objective reasons for committing such actions (omissions).

For instance, in 2011 the AMCU conducted an investigation to determine whether the actions of the buckwheat market operators had signs of anticompetitive concerted actions. The said high-profile case was concerned with the politically sensitive and socially important grain market, which unexpectedly suffered a shortage of buckwheat at the beginning of 2011. In such cases, it is important for the defense to present its opinion unambiguously based on expert's reports and relevant economic market research. The said approach is aimed at refutation of AMCU's suspicions and accusations and proving that a simultaneous increase in prices has been due to the actual market factors.

Liability for anticompetitive concerted actions

For breach of competition law in the form of anticompetitive concerted actions, business entities shall pay a fine in the amount of up to 10% of their income (revenue) from the sale of commodity (goods, works, and services) for the last reporting year preceding the year in which the fine is imposed. In this regard, the amount of fine for breach of competition law is calculated as a percentage of income (revenue) of the whole group of business entities related in terms of control. According to the Law of Ukraine "On Protection of Economic Competition", "business entity" means a legal entity, regardless of its legal form and ownership, or an individual involved in manufacturing, selling or purchasing goods or other business operations, including those that control other entities or individuals; as well as a group of business entities, if one or more of them exercise control over others.

Tougher sanctions for competition violations

In 2012 the AMCU tends to impose tougher sanctions for breach of competition law. In the past, antitrust authorities, though having fairly extensive powers, mostly used to impose quite symbolic fines. At the same time, the recent developments indicate that the AMCU has already started to use its legitimate powers to a greater extent.

For instance, in May 2012 the AMCU fined the state enterprise "Ukrspirt" (the largest state alcohol producer holding 92 alcohol producing plants) almost EUR 20 million (the AMCU's largest fine ever imposed on a single company) for abuse of dominance. The Committee found that the State Enterprise "Ukrspirt" set monopolistically high selling prices for ethanol.

Какую информацию использует АМКУ?

При исследовании рынка пищевых продуктов АМКУ использует как информацию, полученную от операторов рынка в рамках запросов АМКУ о предоставлении информации, так и информацию из открытых источников, в том числе иностранных, с целью определения корпоративных прав нерезидентов (иностранных холдинговых компаний) и их связей с субъектами хозяйственной деятельности на украинском рынке.

What information is used by the AMCU?

While studying the food industry the AMCU uses both information disclosed by market participants within the AMCU's information requests, as well as information from public sources, including foreign ones, in order to determine the corporate rights of non-residents (foreign holding companies) and their relations with stakeholders on the Ukrainian market.

What is in the focus of the AMCU's attention?

The AMCU attaches much importance to the definition of relations of control within a group of companies, as fines for breach of competition law are calculated as a percentage (10%) to the income (revenue) of the whole group of entities related in terms of control. Percentage is calculated from the sale of commodity (goods and services) for the last reporting year, preceding the year in which the fine is imposed.

In addition, on June 18, 2012 the AMCU gave an official warning notice of the inadmissibility of mergers without receiving a relevant permit that is obligatory: "Starting from July 1, 2012 the AMCU will impose the maximum penalties for breach of Article 50 clause 12 of the Law of Ukraine "On Protection of Economic Competition". Besides,, the amount of fine makes up to 10% of the group's income (revenue) of the whole group of entities related in terms of control and is calculated as described above.

Наши рекомендации:

Given that the AMCU, based on the results of its investigation into the food industry, proceeds to prosecution and investigations as to specific market participants, we recommend our clients taking appropriate actions in order to comply with competition law (i.e. to implement the so-called "competition compliance programs") and to mitigate the risks of substantial penalties for breaches of antitrust law, in particular:

1) Before submitting requested documents and information to the AMCU, to scrutinize their scope and content in terms of risks of violation of Ukrainian competition law (to prevent the AMCU's deeper investigation of the industry and possible prosecution);

2) To bring the company's existing policies, procedures, contracts and other documents in compliance with the applicable competition law;

3) To arrange trainings for the company's employees of as to their conduct during AMCU's inspections and investigations.

At the same time, please be advised that failure to provide information to the AMCU within the set term, providing incomplete or false information are deemed as separate competition infringements that entail a fine of up to 1% of a business entity's income (revenue) from sales of commodity (goods, works, and services) for the last reporting year preceding the year in which the fine is imposed.

Also, it is necessary to determine whether the company belongs to a group of companies related in terms of control (the fines for competition infringements being calculated as a percentage of income / revenue of the whole group of companies related in terms of control).

FOOD INDUSTRY OPERATORS AND RETAILS CHAINS HAVE BEEN HELD LIABLE (OR IMPOSED OTHER SANCTIONS) BY THE AMCU FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPICAL COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST LAW INFRINGEMENTS DURING 2011 – 2012

1. Unfair competition in the form of dissemination of misleading information and using another's business reputation:

Retail market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Advertising which gives false information (information on advertising billboards about a global pricing study of the retail market, which confirms the "cheapest prices" set by a particular retailer, false information on the terms of selling products at the manufacturer's prices, promotional prices, "producer's official representation";
  • Using the slogan "The best supermarket chain in Ukraine 2011";
  • Placing false information on the consumer properties of products on their labels.

Misuse of another's business reputation:

  • Imitation of another retailer's store design, which could make the consumer confuse the two companies and their products.

Milk and dairy market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Placing incomplete information on the front cover (lack of the description "spread" and selling the product next to butter, lack of the description "cream and vegetable oil product", "sour cream product" and selling surrogate products next to natural milk products);
  • Placing no information on product packaging regarding the product type (lack of the description "cream and vegetable oil product" and selling the product as sour cream);
  • Placing false information on consumer properties of cream cheese, spread (indicating "butter" instead of "spread"), condensed milk (indicating GOST standards the product does not meet: content of vegetable fats, whereas GOSTs provides for animal fats), indicating false information on fat content (amount) in dairy products;
  • Disseminating false information about thick sour milk production method.

Misuse of another's business reputation:

  • Using another's product designations (use of a label similar to that of another manufacturer's product by a manufacturer of condensed milk).

Grain and oil products market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Placing false information about wheat grain's weight, no indication of sunflower oil's weight;
  • Misuse of another's business reputation:
  • Using another's product designations (selling sunflower seeds with outer packaging designed similarly to that of another manufacturer's products);

Tea market:

Misuse of another's business reputation:

  • Using another's product designations (a producer's use of the main graphic and compositional components of another manufacturer's packaging).

Coffee market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Advertising with false information about the properties of a product conducive to rapid weight loss.

Market of bakery products:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Providing false information on the front cover of a product (about the product's weight);
  • Using the word "cream" in the name of crackers and, thus, misleading consumers about the composition of the product (containing no cream).

Meat and dairy market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Improper use of names of sausages without adhering to state and international standards for the use of names;
  • Providing on the label untruthful statements about consumer properties of sausages.

Market of food concentrates:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Dissemination of false information about the content of natural ingredients in jelly products.

Market of mineral water:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Sale of products with labels bearing images of awards the product has not been given;
  • False information about the period of a company's business operation on the market.

Juice market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Providing false information at receipts and price lists of juice products, namely the name "nectar".

Sweets market:

Dissemination of misleading information:

  • Providing false information on product's packaging about the ingredients of a chocolate roll (indicating better and more expensive ingredients).

2. Anticompetitive concerted practices

Market of grain and oil products:

  • Establishing unreasonably high prices and creating an artificial shortage by sunflower oil producers.

Flour market:

  • Creating conditions to limit other suppliers' access to the bread flour market.

Milk and dairy market:

  • Distortion of bidding results regarding milk and dairy products, fermented milk and curd cheese;
  • Understatement of purchase prices for milk from individual farms;
  • Unreasonable fixing of the same purchase price for milk by particular entities.

Catering market:

  • Distortion of bidding results in the procurement of hot meals services;
  • Admission of entities that do not meet the tender documentation requirements to bidding for catering in educational institutions;
  • Distortion of bidding results in the procurement of foods for pre-school institutions.

Retail market:

  • Using similar schemes by leading retail chains aimed at an economically unjustified rise in food prices.

Market of vegetables:

  • Distortion of bidding results in the procurement of fresh vegetables.

3. Abuse of dominance

Retail market:

  • Using different terms in contracts with different business entities (drafting by a lessor lease agreements of trading places to trade food products with some provisions that are contrary to standard contract provisions);
  • Establishing economically unjustified tariffs for integrated services on provision of trading places for food products, prices for the provision of trading places.

Market of bread sales:

  • Unequal conditions established by a grain producer for participants of market by giving unwarranted discounts on its products to individual retail chains;
  • Establishing economically unjustified prices for main types of self-produced bread by including not foreseen expenses, which are not provided by regulations, in its cost;
  • Establishing economically unjustified prices for bread and bakery products.

Grain market:

  • Establishing economically unjustified prices for grain shipment services.

Buckwheat market:

  • Selling products at economically unreasonable (overpriced) wholesale and retail prices.

Sugar market:

  • Using different terms in contracts with different business entities (collecting different fees from customers for taking and processing sugar beet under the same take-and-give conditions);
  • Selling products at economically unjustified (overpriced) wholesale and retail prices.

Milk market:

  • Using different terms in contracts with different business entities (setting different prices in equivalent agreements without any valid reason);
  • Understating the price of milk bought from individual farms;
  • Maintaining the prices by dairy processing plants after purchase prices for milk have been reduced; trading networks overstating wholesale and retail prices in the same conditions.

4. Informational and other antitrust violations

Bread market:

  • Failure to provide information within the agreed term;
  • Providing incomplete information.

Dairy market:

  • Failure to provide information within the agreed term;
  • Providing incomplete information.

ARZINGER'S FOOD & DRINKS PRACTICE

One of Arzinger's priorities is to provide legal support to the food industry. Our internal Food & Drinks Practice employs more than 10 experienced associates who have working experience in top alcohol companies, major food manufacturing companies, manufacturing companies of mineral water, soft drinks, sparkling and still drinking water, in legal departments of large retail chains, as well as they have experience in legal support of the restaurant and hotel business. At the same time, we keep strengthening and expanding our team to meet our clients' needs. In addition, depending on the project we engage lawyers from Arzinger's other practices with deep expertise in certain areas of law (such as intellectual property rights, tax and customs law, public procurement, corporate law, advertising, etc. ), which enables us to provide our clients with integrated and comprehensive advice on all aspects of doing business in Ukraine.

Our Food & Drinks Practice renders legal support to the following client categories:

  • Manufacturers of food products , alcoholic and soft drinks, and mineral water;
  • Food retailers;
  • Restaurant Business.

We advise leading international and national companies on all issues of legal regulation in the food industry.

We have significant experience in representing our clients in their relations with supervisory and regulatory authorities as well as providing support to clients during inspections conducted by the above authorities.

Arzinger's partners and associates are active participants of conferences, workshops and round tables dedicated to problems of regulating the food industry in Ukraine, as well as to improvement of relevant legislation. In addition, the lawyers of our practice conduct internal and external seminars and trainings for clients' customers in the food industry on the most pressing legal issues in the said field.

Arzinger's working languages are Ukrainian, Russian, German and English.

OUR RECENT EXPERIENCE IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY1 in typical issues of ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION LAW2:

1. Representing a major buckwheat producer in a buckwheat price-fixing investigation conducted by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine

2. Representing a global butter producer in a case on charges of abuse of monopoly power initiated by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine;

3. Representing a hypermarket chain operator in a case on charges of unfair competition investigated by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine;

4. Legal support to a major Ukrainian sunflower oil producer in obtaining AMCU's merger clearance in the respective field (with 14 largest sunflower oil producers and traders in the Ukrainian market);

5. Legal support to a client in obtaining AMCU's clearance to acquire a plant producing apple juice.

The scope of our services in the food industry includes the following:

  • Advising on regulatory issues;
  • Advising in the area of antitrust and competition law;
  • Supporting registration, protection and transfer of intellectual property rights;
  • Consulting in the field of advertising and other types of promotion;
  • Legal support for production, import and export of food products;
  • Consulting in the area of food sales in Ukraine;
  • Advising on tax issues;
  • Advising on personal data protection;
  • Advising on corporate law issues;
  • Consulting in the area of employment law;
  • Representing producers in conflictsituations with consumers;
  • Advising on the powers of law enforcement and regulatory authorities as well as legal support in inspections conducted by the said authorities;
  • Litigation;
  • Advising on real estate and construction issues;
  • Consulting on project financing;
  • Developing and implementing compliance programs and trainings.

As part of Arzinger Academy Legal Days we hold monthly business breakfasts for food industry representatives to let the participants know experts' opinions, to discuss current market issues and to share their experience.

Footnotes

1 The essence of the legal services is disclosed to the extent permitted by our Clients in non-disclosure agreements.

2 Arzinger is a co-founder of the Association for Resistance to Unfair Competition (ARUC), which is an all-Ukrainian non-profit non-governmental public organization (http://www.aruc.org.ua/ru/about/ ). ARUC is a member of the global network International League of Competition Law, with headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland (www.ligue.org ), and acts as its official affiliate in Ukraine. ARUC's main mission is to facilitate the development of fair competitive environment in Ukraine and worldwide. President of the Association – Sergiy Shklyar, our firm's Senior Partner, is also a member of the Public Council under the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and Chairman of the Unfair Competition Committee. Due to this we can discuss the Committee's position on the practical application of any antitrust law provision with the officers of the Committee.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.