Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
PJD Investment/P.J. Donohoe, Paul S. Power/Press-O-Matic Ltd and Novum [1993] IECA 142 (27th October, 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1993/142.html
Cite as:
[1993] IECA 142
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
PJD Investment/P.J. Donohoe, Paul S. Power/Press-O-Matic Ltd and Novum [1993] IECA 142 (27th October, 1993)
Notification
No. CA/651/92E - PJD Investment Company/Fitzwilton Public Limited Company/P.J.
Donohoe, Paul S. Power/Press-O-Matic Limited and Novum (Overseas) Limited
Decision
No. 142.
Introduction
1. An
agreement between P.J. Donohoe and Paul S. Power (the vendors), PJD Investment
Company, Fitzwilton plc (the purchaser), Press-O-Matic Limited and Novum
(Overseas) Limited was notified to the Competition Authority on 30 September,
1992. The agreement provided for the sale of 80% of the shares in PJD
Investment Company to the purchaser. The notification requested a certificate,
or, in the event of a refusal to issue a certificate, a licence.
The
Facts
(a) The
Subject of the Notification
2. The
notification relates to an agreement dated 26 April 1989, between the purchaser
and P.J. Donohoe and Paul S. Power whereby the vendors agreed to sell 80% of
the shares in PJD Investment Company.The agreement also contained a non-compete
provision.
(b) The
Parties
3. PJD
Investment Company is an investment holding company. Fitzwilton plc is a
limited liability company incorporated in the State. Press-O-Matic Limited is a
subsidiary of PJD Investment Company and is involved in the business of the
manufacture and sale of deep freezers under various brand names. Novum
(Overseas) Limited is also a subsidiary of PJD Investment Company and is
engaged in the export of domestic appliances. P.J. Donohoe and Paul Power were
both directors and shareholders of PJD Investment Company.
(c) The
arrangements
4. The
notification related to a Share Purchase Agreement dated 26 April, 1989, for
the sale of 80% of the shares in PJD Investment Company. Clause 8 of the
agreement contained a non-compete clause in which the vendors covenanted:
(i)
Not
to compete in the same business as the purchaser in the Republic of Ireland,
China, Iraq, or any other country where the company or its subsidiaries were
doing business for a period of five years from the date of the agreement;
(ii)
Not
to use or disclose any confidential information relating to the business or
affairs of the company;
(iii) Not
to solicit any of the customers of the purchaser, for a period of five years
from the date of completion; and
(iii) Not
to solicit any of the employees of the purchaser, for a period of five years
from the date of completion.
Subsequent
Developments
5. The
Authority expressed concern at the duration of the non-compete clauses, on the
basis that in general a two year non-compete period is considered sufficient
for the tranfer of good will in the sale of a business. This view was expressed
by the Authority in General Semiconductor
[1].
In a letter to the Authority dated 7 September 1993, the parties agreed that
the restrictive clauses, other than that in respect of confidential information
would cease to apply from 1 October, 1993. In a subsequent letter dated 7
October, the vendors confirmed their acceptance of this change.
Assessment
(a) Section
4(1)
6. Section
4(1) of the Competition Act states that "all agreements between undertakings,
decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have
as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of
competition in trade in any goods or services in the State or in any part of
the State are prohibited and void."
(b) The
Undertakings and the Agreement
7. Section
3(1) of the Competition Act defines an undertaking as " a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service. " The parties to this particular agreement are the vendors and
Fitzwilton Public Limited Company. At the time of the agreement the vendors
were the beneficial owners of Press-O-Matic and Novum, both limited companies
engaged for gain in the manufacturing and distribution of refrigerators,
freezers and associated products. The vendors were therefore undertakings.
Fitzwilton plc is a limited liability company engaged for gain and is therefore
an undertaking. The arrangements therefore constitute an agreement between
undertakings.
(c) Applicability
of Section 4(1)
8. The
share purchase agreement itself was completed prior to 1 October 1991, the date
on which the Competition Act came into force, consequently, this element of the
agreement had been discharged by performance before the Act commenced. The
property which was the subject of the agreement had been transferred. In the
Authority's view, the prohibition in Section 4(1) only applies to a current or
continuing contractual commitment or one entered into subsequent to the coming
into force of the Act.
[2]
9. The
Authority considered that the duration of the restrictions in clause 8 exceeded
what was necessary to secure the complete transfer of the goodwill of the
business. In its view such restrictions would offend against Section 4(1) and
would not satisfy the requirements for a licence under Section 4(2). It
considered that the geographic scope of the restriction insofar as it applied
to the State did not exceed what was necessary to secure the transfer of the
goodwill. As the Authority is only asked to consider whether or not an
agreement prevents, restricts or distorts competition within the State, the
fact that the restrictions apply also to China and Iraq was not considered.
10. In
letters to the Authority dated 7 September and 7 October, 1993, the notifying
parties undertook to cease applying the restrictions with effect from 1
October, 1993. Consequently in the Authority's opinion the agreement no longer
offends against Section 4(1). The restriction on using or disclosing
confidential information is unlimited in time. In the Authority's view such a
restriction does not offend against section 4(1) provided it is not used to
prevent the vendors competing in the market. If that were to happen the
Authority would have to consider revoking the certificate under Section 8(6) of
the Act.
The
Decision
11. In
the Authority's view P.J. Donohoe, Paul S. Power and Fitzwilton plc are
undertakings within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. In the
Authority's opinion The Share Purchase Agreement, between P.J. Donohoe, Paul S.
Power and Fitzwilton plc dated 26 April, 1989, as amended by the letters of 7
September and 7 October, 1993, does not offend against section 4(1).
The
Certificate
12. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the agreement of 26 April 1989, between P.J. Donohoe, Paul
S. Power, PJD Investment Company, Fitzwilton plc, Press-O-Matic Limited and
Novum (Overseas) Limited for the sale and purchase of 80% of the shares in PJD
Investment Company (notification no. CA/651/92E), notified on 30 September
1992, under Section 7, and amended by the letters of 7 September and 7 October,
1993, does not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
Patrick
Massey
Member
27
October 1993.
[ ] 1 Notification
No. CA51/92, Competition Authority Decision No. 10 - GI Corporation/General
Semiconductor Industries Inc., 23 October 1992.
[ ]2 Notice
in respect of Mergers and Takeovers which predate the Competition Act' -
Competition Authority, Iris Oifigiuil, 14 May 1993, p.367
© 1993 Irish Competition Authority