Deal Talk
September 19, 2024
Deal Breaker or Deal Maker?: Deconstructing the “Deal
Value Threshold” Under The Competition Act, 2002
A. Introduction
On September 9, 2024, the Competition Commission
of India (“CCI”), Government
of India and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs collectively
unveiled a ground-breaking set of updates to the merger
control regime in India, effective from September 10,
2024. This significant overhaul comes through the notification
of amendments to the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”)
and new sets of rules and regulations operative under
the framework of the Act.
At the heart of these changes is the notification
of the widely anticipated “deal value threshold”
(“DVT”), which now forms
part of the Indian merger control regime through a conjoint
reading of the Act, the Competition (Amendment) Act,
2023 (“Amendment Act”),
and the Competition Commission of India (Combinations)
Regulations, 2024 (“2024
Combination Regulations”).
In our most recent edition of the “Deal Talk”,
we deconstruct this critical concept in the following
manner:
-
we delve into the rationale for introduction
of the DVT in the Indian merger control regime;
-
we outline the key parameters that are to be
considered during assessment of applicability of
the DVT to transactions; and
-
we set out a framework of the manner in which
the DVT shall operate within the existing merger
control regime.
At each point across this Deal Talk, we have set
out certain critical noting points (relevant for parties
at the time of structuring transactions) through a corresponding “Note
to Deal Teams”.
B. Why was DVT introduced?
The DVT is an additional criterion that has been
introduced under Section 5 of the Act, which assesses
the requirement of prior notifiability of transactions
to the CCI through a “value of the transaction”
test. Through the amendments proposed in the Amendment
Act, DVT has been codified in the form of Section 5
(d) of the Act, which is in addition to the Section
5 (a), (b) and (c) threshold analysis that has been
prescribed in the existing regime. It is to be noted
that while the DVT itself has been added to the Act,
detailed criteria to be met to satisfy the DVT are also
set out within the 2024 Combination Regulations.
This is in stark contrast to the existing Sections
5 (a), (b) and (c) thresholds, each of which provides
an “enterprise level” or “group level”
asset or turnover threshold as the basis for calculation.1
The following components are to be met for a transaction
to be considered notifiable to the CCI due to application
of DVT under Section 5 (d) of the Act read with the
2024 Combination Regulations:
-
The “value of the transaction” (in
connection with an acquisition of shares, voting
rights, assets or control or a merger or amalgamation)
being analysed must exceed INR 2,000 crores (i.e.,
approximately USD 238.4 million or EUR 215.1 million);2
(“Value Test”)
and
-
The enterprise being acquired, taken control
of, merged or amalgamated must have “substantial
business operations” in India (“Business
Test”).3
(the Value Test and Business Test, collectively,
the “DVT Framework”).
Before delving into a detailed assessment of how
the Value Test and Business Test are to be calculated
and met (which has been set out in the next section),
it is important to understand why the DVT was introduced.
DVT was first conceptualised in the Competition Law
Review Committee’s Report released in 2019, which
noted that: (a) under the Act, the CCI did not have
the residuary power to review non-notifiable transactions
to assess “appreciable adverse effect on competition”;
(b) foreign jurisdictions such as Germany, Austria,
etc. utilise a transaction value criterion in order
to assess transactions in digital markets; and (c) a
large number of transactions having a larger deal value
were not being notified to the CCI as the enterprise
was able to avail exemptions under the then applicable
merger control regime.4
Major exempt
deals under the old merger control regime
In order to understand point (c) above in greater
detail, let us take examples of a few transactions that
had large deal values but were not notified to the CCI
due the availability of the Previous De Minimis Exemption
(as defined below):5
-
Zomato’s Acquisition of Blinkit:
On August 10, 2022, Zomato Limited (“Zomato”)
completed the acquisition of Blink Commerce Private
Limited (formerly known as Grofers India Private
Limited) (“Blinkit”).
The consideration paid by Zomato was through issuance
of 628,530,012 fully paid-up equity shares of Zomato
worth INR 55.45 per equity share for a total of
91.04% shareholding of Blinkit, which amounted to
INR 3,485 crores (i.e. approximately USD 415.4 million
or EUR 374.8 million).6 In effect, the
transaction was structured as a share swap.
This transaction was not notified to the CCI since
the transaction was able to avail the previously applicable
de minimis exemption thresholds7 (“Previous
De Minimis Exemption”).8
-
Zomato’s Acquisition of Uber Eats:
A similar transaction structure was also utilised
by Zomato for the acquisition of Uber Eats in January
2020.9 The Uber Eats acquisition was
an all-stock transaction where in lieu of their
shares, the existing shareholders of Uber Eats were
issued 9.99% ownership in Zomato. The approximate
deal value for the deal was USD 350 million (i.e.
approximately INR 2,485 crores or EUR 315.7 million).
This acquisition was not notified to CCI given
that it could also avail the Previous De Minimis
Exemption.
-
Facebook’s Acquisition of WhatsApp:
The killer acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook was
the talk of the town in 2014. Facebook acquired
100% of WhatsApp for a deal value which was touted
to be approximately USD 19 billion (i.e. approximately
INR 159378 crores or EUR 17 billion).10
While antitrust regulators in the European Union
and the United States of America got the opportunity
to scrutinize and assess whether the acquisition
impacted competition in their respective jurisdictions,
the CCI could not assess this acquisition.
-
PVR-Inox Merger: In 2022, PVR
Limited (“PVR”) and
INOX Leisure Limited (“Inox”),
popularly known for being rivals in the film exhibition
industry, merged via a court-sanctioned amalgamation
of Inox into PVR as per the Companies Act, 2013.
The resultant entity that was to be created was
called “PVR Inox Limited”. As a result
of the transaction, existing shareholders of Inox
were to receive shares of PVR based on a swap ratio
set out within the scheme of amalgamation.11
The merger was intended to assist PVR and Inox with
maintaining their long-term operations in order
to survive the increasing threat posed by the growing
popularity of OTT platforms. Further, it was also
likely to lead to the resultant entity becoming
one of the largest players in the film exhibition
industry in India.12
Despite the transaction leading to a tremendous
consolidation of the market share of PVR and Inox
(as mentioned above), it was able to avail the Previous
De Minimis Exemption and was not notified to the
CCI. PVR and Inox’s respective turnovers did
not breach the turnover thresholds specified under
the Previous De Minimis Exemption due to the reduction
in revenues caused by the shutdown of theatre entry
during the pandemic.13
C. How to analyse a transaction
to assess whether it crosses DVT?
Now that we have understood the intent for enactment
of the DVT and its potential impact on transactions,
let’s deep dive into understanding how the Value
Test and Business Test shall practically operate:
Limb 1: Value Test – How to determine
the value?
The “value of the transaction” is supposed
to include all forms of direct or indirect “valuable
consideration” that may also be immediate
or deferred, cash or otherwise.14 Thus,
the DVT intends to capture within its ambit all forms
of cash and non-cash deal structures (such as a share
asset swap, purchase price adjustment mechanisms, etc.),
where the consideration value may not be prima facie
ascertainable or the transaction may not otherwise
breach the asset or turnover thresholds specified under
Sections 5 (a), (b) or (c) of the Act.
The line items that are to be included within the
calculation of the “value of the transaction”
have been set out within the 2024 Combination Regulations15
and are reproduced below.
Importantly, these line items may be read with the “General
Statement on the Competition Commission of India (Combinations)
Regulations, 2024” released by the CCI,16
which sheds light on the potential intent of CCI in
respect of certain provisions added to the 2024 Combination
Regulations (“CCI Interpretative Guidance”).
Sr. No.
|
Regulation No.
|
Line Item
|
CCI Interpretative
Guidance (if any)
|
Note to Deal Teams
|
1
|
4 (1) (a)
|
Covenants, undertakings, obligations or restrictions
imposed on the seller or any person (if such
consideration is agreed separately)
|
In the context of non-compete covenants,
nothing is to be added to the value of the transaction
if:
|
-
The intent here should be to remove any
ambiguity with respect to the consideration
for a covenant. For example, it is common
for shareholders’ agreements of private
companies to specify that a non-compete
covenant is being provided by the promoters
to the acquirer to ensure that the promoters
will discharge day-to-day functions in a
pre-determined manner.
|
2
|
4 (1) (b)
|
Interconnected steps and transactions (provided
in Regulations 9(4) and 9(5) of the 2024 Combination
Regulations)
|
–
|
-
It appears that the time period that
may be considered to interconnect transactions
for this line item can be taken from Explanation
(c), which states that any acquisitions
by one of the parties or their group entity,
in the enterprise, at
any time during the period of 2 years before
the relevant date17 are
to be considered as part of the value of
the transaction.
-
It is important to note that while the
value of any previous transactions in an
enterprise by an acquirer or their group
entities (in the past 2 years) will be added
to the value of the transaction, in case
such consolidated transaction is notifiable,
it will not amount to gun-jumping under
the Act for the previous transaction(s)
and no penalty can be levied on the acquirer
under Section 43A of the Act.
-
It is also pertinent to note here that
given this line item is related to interconnected
transactions, where the law requires notification
of a step even if it is exempted, this would
mean that even if in the previous 2 years
the investor undertook a transaction which
was not notifiable due to availability of
an exemption (such as under the Exemption
Rules, as defined below), in such
case as well, the value of the exempted
transaction would be required to be aggregated
for determining the value of the current
transaction.
|
3
|
4 (1) (c)
|
Consideration payable during 2 years from
the date on which the transaction would come
into effect, for arrangements entered into as
part of the transaction or incidental thereto
[Examples provided: Technology assistance,
licensing of intellectual property rights, usage
rights of any product / service / facility,
supply of raw materials / finished goods, branding
and marketing]
|
-
CCI’s amendments to this line item
(as opposed to the language proposed within
the Draft Combination Regulations, 2023),
have been made “to make the scope
of value of arrangements as more specific
by introducing a specific payment dimension
for a given time frame”.
-
Regulation 4 (1) (c) uses the words “arrangements
... part of the transaction or incidental
thereto”. This is different from
the language set out in Regulation 4 (1)
(b), which makes a reference to “transactions”.
|
-
This line item would, in addition to
the examples mentioned by CCI, also include
mandatory obligations on an investor to
infuse further capital within a specified
timeline or contractually agreed mandatory
follow-on investment obligations.
|
4
|
4 (1) (d)
|
For call option shares and shares and shares
to be acquired thereof, assuming full exercise
of the option
|
-
If the exercise price is based on future
outcomes set out in transaction documents, “best
estimate” to be considered. Explanations
(f), (g) and (h) to be referred to for valuation
issues.
-
Explanation (f) (please refer below)
places the onus of such valuation either
on the board of directors or the approving
authority of the acquirer.
|
-
In case of Indian acquirers, the board
of directors may not want to sign off on
a specific option price / value as on date
unless they are completely satisfied with
the values being ascribed to the call option
as part of the deal, specifically considering
their fiduciary duties under the Companies
Act, 2013. Basis applicable law in other
jurisdictions, similar concerns may emerge
for members of the board of directors of
foreign acquirers as well.
-
Deal team members of the acquirer (who
may fall within the phrase “any
other approving authority of the person
obligated to file notice”) may
also not want to undertake responsibility
of assessment of the value, as it remains
unclear whether they may incur any personal
consequences in case the CCI subsequently
finds that gun-jumping has occurred in respect
of such transaction.
-
Explanation (g) (please refer below)
adds even more ambiguity to the deal as
a whole, because in case the board of directors
or deal team members are uncomfortable with
or are unable to sign off on a specific
valuation with reasonable certainty, the
transaction will be deemed to exceed the
Value Test.
-
In case neither of the above authorities
are comfortable with signing off on a valuation,
the best estimate is supposed to be the “maximum
payable amount”.
However, the manner of its determination
has not been set out in the Explanation
(h) (please refer below).
|
5
|
4 (1) (e)
|
For consideration payable, as per best estimates,
based on the future outcome specified under
transaction documents
|
|
-
This line item also helps in determining
the value of transactions in cases which
include purchase price adjustments based
on future events (such as the EBITDA of
the enterprise). At the time of the transaction
being structured, the parties shall in best
estimate undertake the purchase price adjustments
to determine the value of the transaction
as on date.
|
In addition to the above line items, certain explanations
have also been provided to aid with their interpretation.
The critical explanations are as set out below:
-
Explanation
(c): The value of the transaction must include
the consideration of any acquisitions by one of
the parties / their group entities in the enterprise
at any time between 2 years prior to the relevant
date.
-
Explanation
(f): In cases of mergers / amalgamations
or where the true and complete value of the transaction
is not recorded in the transaction documents, the
value of the transaction or such component shall
be such as may be considered by the board of directors
or any approving authority of the acquirer.
-
Explanation
(g): In case the transaction value cannot
be established with reasonable certainty by the
board of directors or any approving authority of
the acquirer, the value shall be deemed to exceed
the Value Test.
-
Explanation
(h): “Best estimate” is to be
determined through an estimate set out by the board
of directors or any approving authority of the acquirer.
In case they do not record the best estimate, the “maximum
payable amount” shall be considered as the
best estimate.
A spectrum
of the way the look-back periods under #2 and #3 of
the above table shall operate for a specific transaction
have been captured below:
Limb 2: Business Test – Does the
enterprise have substantial business operations in India?
An enterprise has “substantial business operations”
in India, in case if either of the conditions set out
in (a), (b) or (c) below are met:
For digital services20 provided, the
business users / end users21 in India should
be 10% or more of the total global users (“User
Test”);
or
The gross merchandise value22 for
12 months preceding the relevant date must be: (a) 10%
or more of the total global gross merchandise value;
and
(b) more than INR 500 crores (i.e. approximately USD
59.5 million or EUR 53.7 million) (and this part (b)
not applying to digital services) (“GMV
Test”);
or
The turnover during the preceding financial year
in India is: (a) 10% or more of the global turnover
derived from all products and services;
and
(b) more than INR 500 crores (i.e. approximately USD
59.5 million or EUR 53.7 million) (and this part (b)
not applying to digital services) (“Turnover
Test”).
It is to be noted that the 2024 Combination Regulations
do not currently specify how the Business Test is likely
to be applicable and calculated in respect of such enterprises
that are providing digital and non-digital services,
and it will be interesting to see how this calculation
will occur in practice.
A pictorial
representation of the Business Test is as below:
A diagrammatical
representation of how the DVT Framework would work is
as below:
Let’s simplify how a deal team should
analyse a transaction for merger notification.
The addition of the DVT will lead to parties assessing
their transactions through recourse to the following
step chart:
Part 1 –
Transaction Type Analysis
-
Step 1: Check whether the transaction involves:
(x) an acquisition of control, shares, voting rights,
or assets; (y) acquisition of control by an acquirer
having direct or indirect control over an enterprise
involved in a similar or identical business;
or
(z) a merger or amalgamation. This will help
assess whether the transaction may fall under Section
5 (a), (b) or (c) of the Act.
-
Step 2: Once the transaction qualifies the
test of Step 1 above, check whether the transaction
meets the enterprise or group level thresholds set
out within Sections 5 (a), (b)
or
(c) of the Act.23 If yes, the transaction
may become a notifiable “combination”
unless it is exempt from notification under Part
2 (A) below (“Non-DVT Case”).
-
Step 3: Irrespective of whether the transaction
falls within Step 2 above, check whether the “value
of the transaction” meets the criteria set
out in the DVT Framework. If yes, the transaction
may become a notifiable “combination”
unless it is exempt from notification under Part
2 (B) below (“DVT Case”).
Note to Deal Teams: Given the
overarching nature of Step 3 (i.e. DVT Case), deal teams
may consider assessing Step 3 first in case their transactions
have a considerably higher value.
Part 2 (A) –
Exemption Assessment for Non-DVT Case
-
Step
4 for Non-DVT Case: Check whether the transaction
is eligible to obtain any exemptions. The potentially
available exemptions are as under:
Non-DVT Case: Exemptions from
notification, if any, to be available either under:
(i) the Schedule to the Competition (Criteria for
Exemption of Combinations) Rules, 2024 (“Exemption
Rules”); or (ii) the thresholds set
out under the revised Section 5 (e) of the Act (as
amended by Section 6 of the Amendment Act) (popularly
called the “De Minimis Exemption”).24
Part 2 (B) –
Exemption Assessment for DVT Case
-
Step
4 for DVT Case: Check whether the transaction
is eligible to obtain any exemptions. The potentially
available exemptions are as under:
DVT Case: Exemption of notification,
if any, is available
only under
the Exemption Rules.
Note to Deal Teams: A DVT Case
cannot avail the De Minimis Exemption that is available
to a Non-DVT Case under the revised merger control regime.
This is in line with the legislative intent to assess
transactions (particularly within digital markets) where
enterprises may have lower turnover and assets (and
can avail the De Minimis Exemption), but the true value
of such enterprise lies in non-monetary factors such
as the number of digital users, business models, etc.
which is captured in the high valuation of the enterprise
through a high valuation multiple.
D. Let’s reanalyse
the previously exempt transactions under the new merger
control regime!
Now that we know how to analyse whether your deal
exceeds the DVT, let us apply the analysis practically
to ascertain whether the transactions mentioned above
would be notifiable to CCI if DVT existed at that time:
-
Zomato’s acquisition of Blinkit:
-
The total consideration for the acquisition
of 91.04% shareholding of Blinkit by Zomato
(through the share swap) was INR 3,485 crores.
This would mean that the “value of the
transaction” would satisfy the Value Test
(i.e. INR 2,000 crores or above).
-
Blinkit is a quick-commerce business
with operations across all major cities in India,25
which would imply that Blinkit would satisfy
the Business Test.
-
Considering that the criteria set out
in the DVT Framework are being met, the Previous
De Minimis Exemption would not have been available
to Zomato for the acquisition of Blinkit.
-
By acquiring 91.04% shareholding of Blinkit,
Zomato acquired nearly 100% shareholding of
Blinkit, there by acquiring “control”26
over Blinkit. Therefore, given the structure
of the deal, Zomato could also not have been
able to avail any exemption under the Exemption
Rules.
Based on the above, the Zomato-Blinkit acquisition
under the DVT Framework would be notifiable
if it was undertaken in the context of the revised
merger control regime that includes the DVT.
-
Zomato’s acquisition of UberEats:
The Zomato-Uber Eats acquisition would
be notifiable under the DVT Framework if
it was undertaken today. Interestingly, CCI had
undertaken an investigation into the Zomato-Uber
Eats acquisition to assess if the acquisition caused
an “appreciable adverse effect on competition”,
given that Zomato’s market share in food delivery
market went up to 55% post the acquisition.27
The above acquisition is an important example of
the lacunae within the erstwhile thresholds under
the previous merger control regime, and how recourse
to the DVT may be important to assess the competition
impact of such transactions.
Note to Deal Teams: In cross-border
share swap deals, where an Indian company acquires a
foreign company in lieu of issuance of its own shares
as consideration, it is also very important to assess
the Business Test holistically with respect to both
the companies.
-
Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp:
In the event that the DVT was applicable in 2014,
Facebook would have had to undertake the Business
Test (given that the Value Test is getting satisfied
due to the high deal value) for WhatsApp in India
to ascertain whether a notification to the CCI was
required. If WhatsApp satisfied the Business Test,the
transaction would have been notifiable to the CCI
owing to the DVT.
Note to Deal Teams: In case
a transaction has been structured as a global level
acquisition (involving Indian subsidiaries and operations),
the “value of the transaction” for the purposes of notifiability
to the CCI under the DVT would be the total deal value
and not just the value of the Indian asset or operations,
given that each step in the global transaction would
be considered as interconnected to the acquisition of
the Indian asset / operations.
-
PVR-Inox Merger:
Interestingly, the non-notification of this merger
to the CCI was challenged before the CCI on grounds
that such transaction would lead to a potential
abuse of dominance of the resultant entity in the
relevant market under Section 4 of the Act. The
CCI rejected these allegations, noting that: (a)
the mere existence of dominance (without any abuse
of such dominance) is not punishable under Section
4 of the Act; and (b) if such abuse of dominance
is demonstrated by the resultant entity, the same
would be examined post facto, as the transaction
had not been consummated as on the date that the
information had been filed before it.28
This order was subsequently appealed before
the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”)
and the appeal was rejected.29
If the DVT was in effect at the time of structuring
of this deal, the parties may have had to assess
whether the merger was likely to exceed the Value
Test, considering that the transaction would, in
all likelihood and basis the business operations
of PVR and Inox, cross the Business Test. If the
transaction would have satisfied the Value Test,
it would have been notifiable to the CCI
owing to the DVT.
Note to Deal Teams: While mergers
(structured as a share swap of shares of the resultant
entity) will not have a specific consideration set out
within the scheme filed with the regulator (given that
they will only specify a share swap ratio), a deal value
will have to be arrived at using the Value Test, in
order to ensure that the transaction is not notifiable
on account of DVT.
Further, another softer concern to be kept in
mind during the structuring of such transactions is
that even if such transactions may otherwise be non-notifiable
due to availability of exemptions, the resultant impact
on market share may led to the CCI taking investigating
such transactions. Accordingly, all backing information
to justify the availability of an exemption must always
be maintained by all parties.
E. Final Thoughts
The deal examples examined above make it clear: the
introduction of the DVT was crucial for the CCI to evaluate
transactions that could influence market competition
but previously slipped through the cracks due to the
recourse to the Previous De Minimis Exemption or De
Minimis Exemption, and their lack of residual powers
for scrutiny of such non-notifiable deals.
Concepts similar to the DVT are in place worldwide,
such as the “size of the transaction threshold”
in the United States.30 Though still in its
early stages, the DVT is expected to become more refined
as the CCI’s decisional practices evolve and as
further clarifications (such as FAQs) are released.
Despite being in its infancy, the DVT is poised to have
a substantial impact on how deals having an Indian nexus
are structured and negotiated going forward.
Author:
Parina Muchhala,
Anurag Shah,
Nishchal Joshipura and
Viral Mehta
You can
direct your queries or comments to the relevant member.
1These thresholds were recently revised
through a circular released in March 2024. Our analysis
of this development is available at:
https://www.nishithdesai.com/NewsDetails/14949.
2We have converted the Indian Rupee values
across this Deal Talk to United States Dollar (“USD”)
and Euro (“EUR”) based
on the conversion rates publicly available as on September
14, 2024.
3Section 6, Amendment Act (which inserts
Section 5(d) and a proviso to the Act).
4https://www.ies.gov.in/
pdfs/Report-Competition
-CLRC.pdf.
5The information in this section is based
on publicly available information as on September 14,
2024.
6Outcome of board meeting held on August
3, 2023, available at:
https://nsearchives.nseindia.com/
corporate/
ZOMATO_03082023151908_
ZomatoOutcomeSigned.pdf.
7The previous de-minimis exemption thresholds
are available at:
https://www.mca.gov.in/
Ministry/pdf/Notification
_30032017.pdf.
According to these thresholds, in case the assets of
the target were below INR 350 crores,
or
the turnover of the target was below INR 1,000 crores,
the transaction was exempt from notification to the
CCI.
8https://www.cnbctv18.com/
business/companies/
exclusive--zomato-board-to-sign-off-
blinkit-acquisition-on-june-17
-13731672.htm.
9https://investor.uber.com/
news-events/news/
press-release-details/2020/
Zomato-Acquires-Ubers-Food-
Delivery-Business-in-India/
default.aspx.
10https://www.forbes.com/
sites/parmyolson/2014/
10/06/facebook-closes-
19-billion-whatsapp-deal/.
11https://s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/
cdn.inoxmovies.com/
Downloads/
6ffdee4d-1839-41e6-
a2be-95a14f8985d1.pdf.
12See generally:
https://www.businessinsider.in/
business/news/pvr-inox-now-fifth-
largest-listed-multiplex-chain-
globally-awaits-good-movies/
articleshow/98621386.cms.
13In Re: Consumer Unity &
Trust Society and PVR Limited and Inox Leisure
Limited (Order under Section 26(2) of the Act,
Competition Commission of India, Case. No. 29 of 2022).
14Regulation 4 (1), 2024 Combination Regulations.
15Regulation 4, 2024 Combination Regulations.
16https://www.cci.gov.in/
images/whatsnew/en
/general-statement-
combination-
regulations1725954145.pdf.
17According to Regulation 2 (1) (c) of
the 2024 Combination Regulations, the “relevant
date” means the date on which the approval of
the proposal relating to merger or amalgamation is accorded
by the board of directors, or the date of execution
of agreement or the date of such other document for
acquisition or acquiring of control referred to in sub-section
(2) of Section 6 of the Act.
18See generally, Regulation
3.137 (Part II: Notion of Undertaking Concerned), Commission
Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation
(EC) No 139/2004.
19Paragraph #7 (e), Order under Section
43A of the Competition Act, 2002, Combination Registration
No. C-2015/02/249.
20As defined within Explanation 2 (d)
to Regulation 4 (2), “Digital service” means
the provision of a service or one or more pieces of
digital content, or any other activity by means of an
internet whether for consideration or otherwise to the
end user or business user, as the case may be.
21As defined within Explanation 2 (e)
and 2 (f) to Regulation 4 (2) respectively, “business
user” means any natural or legal person supplying
or providing goods or services, including through the
use of digital services; and “end user”
means any natural or legal person using digital services
other than as a business user, for informational or
transactional purpose. The proportion of business users
or end users is to be computed on the basis of average
number of such users for 365 days preceding the relevant
date.
22As defined within Explanation 2 (a)
to Regulation 4 (2), “gross merchandise value”
means cash, receivables, or other consideration either
for or facilitating, sale of goods and / or provision
of services, by an enterprise, on its own or as an agent
or otherwise.
23These thresholds were recently revised
through a circular released in March 2024. Our analysis
of this development is available at:
https://www.nishithdesai.com/NewsDetails/14949.
24Ibid.
25https://blinkit.com/aboutus.
26The definition of “control”
applicable for the purposes of the Act has been modified
through the Amendment Act.
27https://www.livemint.com/
companies/start-ups/
zomato-acquires-uber-eats
-business-in-india-to-consolidate
-position-11579578326776.html.
28In Re: Consumer Unity &
Trust Society, Case No. 29 of 2022 (Competition
Commission of India).
29https://www.business-
standard.com/
companies/news/
nclat-set-aside-cuts-petition-
seeking-cci-probe-in-pvr-inox
-merger-123081000932_1.html.
30https://www.ftc.gov/
enforcement/premerger-notification-program/
hsr-resources/steps-determining-
whether-hsr-filing.
Disclaimer
The contents of this hotline should
not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.
This hotline does not constitute a
legal opinion and may contain information generated
using various artificial intelligence (AI) tools or
assistants, including but not limited to our in-house
tool,
NaiDA. We strive to ensure the highest quality and
accuracy of our content and services. Nishith Desai
Associates is committed to the responsible use of AI
tools, maintaining client confidentiality, and adhering
to strict data protection policies to safeguard your
information.
This hotline provides general information
existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is
intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates
neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any
loss arising to any person acting or refraining from
acting as a result of any material contained in this
Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice
be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances.
This hotline does not substitute the need to refer to
the original pronouncements.
This is not a spam email. You have
received this email because you have either requested
for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since
India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive,
which states that a email cannot be considered spam
if it contains the sender's contact information, which
this email does. In case this email doesn't concern
you, please
unsubscribe from mailing list.
|
We aspire
to build the next generation
of socially-conscious lawyers
who strive to make the world
a better place.
At NDA, there
is always room for the right
people! A platform for self-driven
intrapreneurs solving complex
problems through research, academics,
thought leadership and innovation,
we are a community of non-hierarchical,
non-siloed professionals doing
extraordinary work for the world’s
best clients.
We welcome
the industry’s best talent -
inspired, competent, proactive
and research minded- with credentials
in Corporate Law (in particular
M&A/PE Fund Formation),
International Tax , TMT and
cross-border dispute resolution.
Write to
happiness@nishithdesai.com
To learn more
about us
Click here.
|
|
Chambers
and Partners Asia
Pacific 2024:
Top Tier for Tax,
TMT, Employment,
Life Sciences, Dispute
Resolution, FinTech
Legal
Legal 500
Asia Pacific 2024:
Top Tier for Tax,
TMT, Labour &
Employment, Life
Sciences & Healthcare,
Dispute Resolution
Benchmark
Litigation Asia
Pacific 2024:
Top Tier for Tax,
Labour & Employment,
International Arbitration
AsiaLaw
Asia-Pacific 2024:
Top Tier for Tax,
TMT, Investment
Funds, Private Equity,
Labour and Employment,
Dispute Resolution,
Regulatory, Pharma
IFLR1000
2024: Top
Tier for M&A
and Private Equity
FT Innovative
Lawyers Asia Pacific
2019 Awards:
NDA ranked 2nd in
the Most Innovative
Law Firm category
(Asia-Pacific Headquartered)
RSG-Financial
Times:
India’s Most
Innovative Law Firm
2019, 2017, 2016,
2015, 2014
|
|
|
|