Another hurdle in competition commission’s forex case

 

 

The long-running case between the Competition Commission and 23 local and international banks over foreign exchange manipulation has hit another hurdle as a number of the foreign banks have appealed a recent ruling from the South African Competition Tribunal. They are taking issue with the tribunal’s view of its jurisdictional powers.

The banks that have applied to the Competition Appeal Court include Macquarie Bank Limited; HSBC Bank USA; JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JP Morgan Chase Bank; Credit Suisse Securities Bank of America; Merrill Lynch International Limited and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc (the Bank of America respondents); and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ).

READ MORE: Forex cartel case drags on

These banks are largely what the tribunal determined to be “pure peregrini” — foreign-owned banks that are not domiciled in South Africa and which do not carry out business here.

The tribunal’s order, handed down last month, was in response to a number of pre-trial exception applications made by the banks, asking it to dismiss the case. The reasons included that the local competition authorities did not have jurisdiction over some of the banks, and that the commission’s referral was so poorly formulated that the banks were unable to answer the case being made against them.

As part of its order, the tribunal instructed the commission to go back and reformulate its case against the banks within 40 days.


On the question of jurisdiction, it found that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring the banks to pay any administrative penalty as such an order would not be effective. It therefore constrained the commission to seek an order declaring the conduct of these pure peregrini to be anti-competitive.

But the tribunal said this did not mean it was barred from issuing any other kind of declaratory order pronouncing on the conduct of foreign firms in South Africa — provided that the commission can prove its case against some or all of the foreign-owned banks and the declaratory order is limited in its effect.

The tribunal took time to outline why it was important for it to do so in its reasons for the decision: “Such a declaratory order is important to make in cartel enforcement because whilst the tribunal may lack enforcement jurisdiction, it is still a matter of public interest, in fighting the scourge of cartels, to pronounce upon the conduct of foreign firms whose conduct has harmed South African consumers,” it said.

READ MORE: International case may set precedent in rand-rigging battle

The tribunal also did not want to be “under-inclusive” in framing any future declaratory order — particularly in the face of possible civil trials seeking damages.

“This means if a certificate mentioned only those firms over whom the tribunal had jurisdiction, the certificate could prove under-inclusive in a later civil trial, if the plaintiff sought to rely on evidence of agreements or communications with the pure peregrini cartel members.

“Note this is something different to holding those pure peregrini liable. Rather, it is evidence to assist the plaintiff to claim against those respondents over whom there was jurisdiction, by allowing the conduct to be fully certified, which means naming all those found to have participated,” the tribunal said.

A number of the foreign banks, however, disagree. In papers submitted to the Competition Appeal Court, ANZ argued that if the tribunal’s decision and order remain in place, it will expose ANZ to “a potential declaration of unlawfulness” and such a finding would “obviously have a materially disadvantageous impact on the bank’s reputation in other jurisdictions”.

It would also mean the bank would have “no option” but to participate in proceedings in order to safeguard its rights and interests. Any steps by the pure peregrini to defend themselves in a reformulated complaint could also expose them to the risk of an argument that their involvement “amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of [South Africa’s] competition authorities”.

The Bank of America respondents said that any order from the tribunal, even if this avoids any kind of financial liability or administrative penalty, could have “significant consequences and thus be prejudicial to those firms”.

What the next steps are for the Competition Commission, and how this will affect the process of re-drafting its complaint to the tribunal, is yet to be seen.

Spokesperson for the Competition Commission Sipho Ngwema said only that the commission is studying the applications and weighing its options, after which it will “form a view once we have comprehensively considered everything”. 

Subscribe to the M&G

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

Lynley Donnelly
Lynley Donnelly
Lynley is a senior business reporter at the Mail & Guardian. But she has covered everything from social justice to general news to parliament - with the occasional segue into fashion and arts. She keeps coming to work because she loves stories, especially the kind that help people make sense of their world.

Related stories

Unethical businesses will face people’s protest

Companies must behave like model democratic citizens if they are to earn and retain society’s social licence to operate

Eskom and treasury fight needs urgent attention

Early signs of instability are creeping into struggling power utility as forces fighting for space in the parastatal take battle to the very top at Megawatt Park

Eskom and treasury locked in multibillion-rand tender bunfight

Independent investigation into Eskom reveals fractious board discussions, involving accusations and counter-accusations, as allegations of corruption sink contract

Cambridge Food Jozini: Pandemic or not, the price-gouging continues

The Competition Commission has fined Cambridge Food Jozini for hiking the price of its maize meal during April

Beware of Big Business bearing gifts

Large corporates whose business has thrived because of inequalities, could be hijacking the anti-racist movement by offering money and not tangible changes

Covid infections among health workers increasing in Eastern Cape

Health worker infections have risen to 170 at state and private hospitals and two healthcare staff succumb to the disease in a space of seven days
Advertising

Subscribers only

SAA bailout raises more questions

As the government continues to grapple with the troubles facing the airline, it would do well to keep on eye on the impending Denel implosion

ANC’s rogue deployees revealed

Despite 6 300 ANC cadres working in government, the party’s integrity committee has done little to deal with its accused members

More top stories

It’s not a ‘second wave’: Covid resurges because safety measures...

A simple model shows how complacency in South Africa will cause the number of infections to go on an upward trend again

Trouble brewing for Kenya’s coffee growers

Kenyan farmers say theft of their crop is endemic – and they suspect collusion

Unisa shortlists two candidates for the vice-chancellor job

The outgoing vice-chancellor’s term has been extended to April to allow for a smooth hand-over

How US foreign policy under Donald Trump has affected Africa

Lesotho has been used as a microcosm in this article to reflect how the foreign policy has affected Africa
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…

The best local and international journalism

handpicked and in your inbox every weekday