• Home
  • News
    • Press Statements
    • Speeches
    • Bar News
    • AGMs and EGMs
    • In Memoriam
    • Legal and General News
    • Court Judgments
  • Members
    • Circulars
    • Sijil Annual and Payments
    • Benefits
    • Practice Management
    • Professional Development
    • Opportunities for Practice
    • Mentor-Mentee Programmes
    • Laws, BC Rulings and Practice Directions
    • Resources
    • Become a Member
  • Find
    • Legal Directories
    • BC Legal Aid Centres
    • State Bar Committees
    • Law Firms | Areas of Practice
    • Jobs
    • Useful forms
  • About Us
    • Malaysian Bar and Bar Council
    • President's Corner
    • Committees
    • Previous Committees
    • Contacts
    • Advertising
  • Public
    • Complaints
    • Legal Aid
    • Notices
    • Compensation Fund
  • Search
  • Login
Search for

New login method: If first-time login, the password is your NRIC No. Call 20502191 for help.

 
Lost your password? Remember Me

 
No User ID/Password for firm? Click here for more information. Forgot Firm Username/Password?

Set a new password

If you have lost your password, you must set a new password. To begin this process, please key in your 12-digit NRIC No. below.

Forgot Firm Username/ Password?

Please enter name of firm or registered email address, indicate whether you want to retrieve your firm's username or password, and click "Submit".

Username Password
 
Access to Member Portal

Please key in your membership number, and click "GO"

BC
Resume Practice Request

Please key in your membership number, and click "GO"

BC
Newly-Called Request

Please key in your pupil code, and click "Submit"

Pupil Code

Change Password


Please enter your Password and Confirm Password then click on the Change Password button.
You will receive a new password shortly. Use this new password to access the site.

Password:
Confirm Password:
 
Change Password


Shortcut
  • Legal Directory
  • Find a Job
  • CPD
  • Online Shop
  • Payments
  • Complaints
  • Committees

Search the site

  • Search Me
Member Login
  • BC Online Facilities
  • Login Type 2
  • Login Type 3
  • Login Type 4
  • About Us
  • Previous Committees
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2014
About Us
Malaysian Bar and Bar Council
  • About Us
  • Bar Council Members
  • Bar Council Secretariat
  • Elections
President's Corner
  • Roll of Presidents
  • Press Statements
Committees
  • * Committees | Introduction
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Conditional Fee Rules (Re Non-Personal Injuries)
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Conditional Fee Rules (Re Personal Injuries)
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Contempt of Court
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Services Blueprint
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Personal Data Protection
  • Ad Hoc Pandemic Response
  • Advocacy Training Committee
  • Arbitration
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Building
  • Child Rights
  • Civil Law
  • Committee on AMLA
  • Committee On Orang Asli Rights
  • Committee on Reform to the Legal Sector
  • Common Bar Course
  • Constitutional Law Committee
  • Construction Law
  • Conveyancing Practice
  • Corporate and Commercial Law
  • Court Liaison
  • Criminal Law
  • Cyberlaw
  • Environment and Climate Change
  • Family Law
  • Finance
  • Human Rights
  • Industrial and Employment Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2022
  • International Professional Services (formerly known as Trade In Legal Services)
  • Islamic Finance
  • IT, Innovation and Future in Technology
  • Law Reform and Special Areas
  • LawCare
  • Legal Databases Liaison
  • Legal Profession
  • Mediation
  • Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs Committee
  • National Legal Aid
  • National Young Lawyers and Pupils
  • Personal Injury Claims and Awards
  • Professional Indemnity Insurance
  • Professional Standards and Development
  • Publications
  • Risk Management
  • Shipping and Admiralty Law
  • Small Firms Practice
  • Solicitors' Remuneration Enforcement Committee
  • Sports
  • Syariah Law
  • Task Force on Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission ("IPCMC") and Police Accountability
  • Women's Rights
  • Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan Committee
Previous Committees
  • * Previous Committees | Introduction
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Amendments to the LPA
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Anti Money Laundering
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Benchmarking Law Firms
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Commission
  • Ad Hoc Committee On National Legal Aid Foundation
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Quality and Standards
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Rules and Regulations
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Gender Issues & Equal Opportunities (2005-2007)
  • Institutional and Law Reform
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2012
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2014
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2016
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2018
  • International Malaysia Law Conference 2020
  • LawCare Fund Management
  • Library
  • Malaysian Law Conference Organising Committee 2007
  • Malaysian Law Conference Organising Committee 2010
  • Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee
  • No-Fault Liability Scheme
  • Practice Management Support Committee
  • Safer Malaysia
  • Standing Committee for the Promotion of Best Practices by Detaining Authorities (2005-2007)
  • Standing Committee on Court Rules (2005-2007)
  • Standing Committee on Eliminating Discrimination (2005-2007)
  • Standing Committee to Review LPA 1976
  • Study Loan
  • Task Force on Combined Rules of Court
  • Task Force to Review the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards
Contacts
  • Web Administrator
  • Complaints
  • Legal Aid Centres
  • State Bar Committees
  • Bar Council Secretariat
  • Bar Council Members
  • Bar Council
Advertising
  • Advertise with Bar Council
  • Go back to list
IMLC 2014 | Corporate Exercises vs Competition Law — Running the Gauntlet 26 Sep 2014 12:00 am

This item has been updated since initial publication.

By Debbie Woo

This session entitled “Corporate Exercises vs Competition Law — Running the Gauntlet” featured Dato’ Johari Razak, K Shanti Mogan, Ng Swee Kee and Anand Raj, all partners of Shearn Delamore & Co, as well as Dr R Ian McEwin, an economist who holds the Khazanah Nasional chair at University of Malaya Malaysian Centre of Regulatory Studies (“UMCoRS”).



Dato’ Johari began the session by giving an overview of Malaysian competition law and its effects and potential effects on corporate exercises, mergers and acquisitions.  He explained that the purpose of the Malaysian Competition Act 2010 (“CA”) is to eliminate anti–competitive conduct and agreements.

Ms Mogan then explained the different types of restraints under the CA, including prohibitions against anti–competitive agreements under section 4 of the CA, and abuses of dominance under section 10 of the CA.

Speaking from her experience, Ms Mogan also said that there was no “one–size–fits–all” type of answer as to whether or not an agreement is anti–competitive.  The reality of competition law is that there is no one–stage test, and competition law is also not an exact science.  She added that an economic analysis may be required to determine if an arrangement has any effect on competition.

Another pointer given by Ms Mogan to determine if an arrangement is anti–competitive is to see if the restraint is necessary to enable the parties to achieve a legitimate commercial purpose.  Ms Mogan then provided several examples of how certain arrangements, which at first glance appeared to be anti–competitive, were held by the courts to be not anti–competitive.

Mr Ng spoke about the effects of competition law on a due diligence exercise.  Mr Ng pointed out that a competition law due diligence process should not be restricted to a review of written contracts but should also include a review of the conduct of employees.

One of the practical issues Mr Ng raised was how much sensitive data a target company should disclose to a potential purchaser (who may often be a competitor in the same market) and how to mitigate the risks of abuse.

One of the possibilities suggested by Mr Ng is for the parties to have a sufficiently wide confidentiality agreement in place and to ensure that any sensitive data is redacted until the parties reach an advanced stage of negotiations.  He highlighted that one of the consequences of competition law infringements is that it is not only the entity which contravened the law that is penalised, but also its shareholders and parent company.

Mr Raj then addressed the delegates and started with the proposition that a radical rethink of the traditional approach to due diligence exercises may be required.  A due diligence process must sufficiently identify the risks and potential “time bombs” in terms of anti–competitive behaviour by target companies (using the example of an acquisition).

Mr Raj then said that a traditional due diligence exercise would normally focus on written documents and formal arrangements of a target company.  However, such reviews are unlikely to detect certain anti–competitive behaviour, for instance the exchange of price–related information or price fixing by executives in social or other settings such as in karaoke lounges, conferences or on golf courses.  He emphasised that the traditional due diligence processes in Malaysia today may not be adequate to identify competition law risks.

Mr Raj then gave a quick overview of the competition law regimes in various jurisdictions, such as Australia, China, the European Union (“EU”), Singapore and India, and highlighted that Malaysia is one of the few countries that does not yet have merger control provisions.

Another interesting point raised by Mr Raj was that a number of jurisdictions have criminalised the involvement in cartels.  These countries include Australia, some EU member states, Japan, Korea and the United States of America (“USA”).

Mr Raj pointed out that Malaysian enterprises may not realise that when they export products to the USA and the EU, they (and their management, executives, etc) may also be subject to the competition laws of the USA and the EU, including criminal provisions for cartel activity.  In a number of recent cases, the senior management personnel, directors and executives of large manufacturing companies have been imprisoned in the USA for cartel activity conducted in Taiwan, Japan and other countries, as those companies had all exported their products to the USA market.

Dr McEwin, a well–respected economist and lawyer, then shared his views on the Malaysian competition regime.  One of the questions posed to him was whether Malaysia should have merger control laws, to which he answered in the affirmative without any hesitation.

Dr McEwin was of the view that the Malaysian Government would eventually be pressured into enacting merger control provisions as the current provisions are too messy and complicated to address the competition issues in mergers.  The process of determining whether or not a merger would have a significant impact on competition, would have to be simplified.

To a question from Mr Raj, Dr McEwin agreed that the lack of merger control provisions in Malaysia is unsatisfactory as, under the law as it stands, mergers may, in certain situations, be challenged under section 4 or section 10 of the CA.

© Copyright Reserved 2022. Bar Council Malaysia.
 

I'm a