An­drea Perez-Sobers

Se­nior Re­porter

an­drea.perez-sobers

@guardian.co.tt

The Fair Trad­ing Com­mis­sion (FTC) has opened the pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion phase for the pro­posed merg­er be­tween Agos­ti­ni Ltd and Pres­tige Hold­ings Ltd, mark­ing the first for­mal step in a long-de­layed com­pe­ti­tion re­view that is now back on track af­ter months of reg­u­la­to­ry lim­bo.

In a pub­lic no­tice, the FTC in­vit­ed stake­hold­ers and mem­bers of the pub­lic to sub­mit com­ments on the trans­ac­tion, with a dead­line of May 13. The re­view is be­ing con­duct­ed un­der Part III of the Fair Trad­ing Act, which gov­erns merg­er con­trol and com­pe­ti­tion over­sight.

FTC ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor Be­van Nar­i­nesingh told Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day the process could on­ly be­gin af­ter both a prop­er­ly con­sti­tut­ed board and a com­plete ap­pli­ca­tion were in place.
“The Com­mis­sion has a board, and the board was ap­point­ed on April 8,” he said, ex­plain­ing that pri­or to that, the agency was legal­ly con­strained.

“Un­der the Fair Trad­ing Act, a merg­er could on­ly be re­viewed af­ter the sub­mis­sion of a com­plete ap­pli­ca­tion, and the ap­pli­ca­tion was on­ly con­sid­ered com­plete a few days ago. Act­ing with­out a board and al­so act­ing with­out a com­plete ap­pli­ca­tion would have con­sti­tut­ed us act­ing il­le­gal­ly and against the pro­vi­sions of the Act.”
Nisha Per­sad now chairs the Com­mis­sion, her ap­point­ment com­ing amid mount­ing le­gal pres­sure over the de­lay.

A pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter from at­tor­ney Renu­ka Sagram­s­ingh-Sook­lal, act­ing for Wen­dell Ever­s­ley and led by Se­nior Coun­sel Stu­art Young, had threat­ened ju­di­cial re­view against the Min­istry of Trade, In­vest­ment and Tourism.

That de­lay di­rect­ly im­pact­ed the Agos­ti­ni–Pres­tige deal, one of the most close­ly watched trans­ac­tions in the lo­cal busi­ness space. Agos­ti­ni Group Ltd has al­ready se­cured 96.9 per cent share­hold­er ap­proval for the ac­qui­si­tion of Pres­tige Hold­ings, but the deal re­mains con­tin­gent on reg­u­la­to­ry clear­ance.

Nar­i­nesingh said the con­sul­ta­tion is de­signed to gath­er mar­ket in­tel­li­gence from a wide cross-sec­tion of stake­hold­ers, in­clud­ing con­sumers, com­peti­tors, and sup­pli­ers.

“We want to hear from the stake­hold­ers, whether they be mem­bers of the gen­er­al pub­lic, con­sumers, com­peti­tors, dis­trib­u­tors, re­tail­ers, to just hear their views. Now is the time for them to share their views, and we have giv­en them the no­tice,” he ex­plained.

The Com­mis­sion is seek­ing feed­back on how the merg­er could af­fect com­pe­ti­tion, pric­ing, qual­i­ty, con­sumer choice, and in­no­va­tion, as well as any po­ten­tial bar­ri­ers to en­try or ex­pan­sion in rel­e­vant mar­kets. It is al­so invit­ing sub­mis­sions on pos­si­ble ef­fi­cien­cies or ben­e­fits aris­ing from the trans­ac­tion.

Nar­i­nesingh made clear that the out­come will be ev­i­dence-dri­ven and ul­ti­mate­ly de­ter­mined by the board.
“The board will be in­formed about what the com­ments are and if there are any con­cerns. How­ev­er, our ac­tions will be in ac­cor­dance with the law and based on the ev­i­dence that is pro­vid­ed to us as well as the da­ta from our own re­search and analy­sis,” the ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor not­ed.
He al­so ad­dressed on­go­ing con­cerns about mo­nop­o­lis­tic be­hav­iour in lo­cal mar­kets, not­ing that the law tar­gets abuse rather than dom­i­nance it­self.

“What is il­le­gal is the abuse of mo­nop­oly pow­er,” he said, adding that the cur­rent process gives stake­hold­ers a for­mal av­enue to raise any con­cerns about the merg­er’s po­ten­tial im­pact.

Sub­mis­sions must in­clude con­tact de­tails and clear­ly iden­ti­fy any con­fi­den­tial in­for­ma­tion. The FTC said feed­back re­ceived will play a cen­tral role in shap­ing its fi­nal de­ter­mi­na­tion on whether the merg­er pro­ceeds.