Sappi Group Competition Law Policy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Group Competition Law Policy As a multinational company operating and trading in all major countries in the world, Sappi is subject to the competition and antitrust legislation in many jurisdictions. Although country- specific legislation is different in application, the underlying principles of anticompetitive behaviour are similar and the guidelines provided below highlight these behaviours. The consequences to Sappi for not complying with antitrust laws are significant, and non- compliance can result in financially severe fines, reputational harm, private damage claims and potentially criminal penalties being imposed on both the company and its employees. Potential infringements of antitrust laws are the single most important legal risk that Sappi is subject to. Antitrust laws apply not only to specific departments of an organisation (as might be commonly believed) and are also not only applicable to the major business products or areas but apply to all departments and all businesses within the group. It is, therefore, important that all business units and divisions be aware of what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour. The guideline below provides an introduction to what practices are considered anticompetitive and how employees should go about avoiding and reporting such practices should they be identified. The policy Regional legal departments conduct regular The Sappi group holds a policy of strict competition law training or publish competition compliance with all laws applicable to its law updates to employees. Appointed operations worldwide and as such, requires employees are compelled to attend or complete strict compliance with all antitrust legislation. any training provided and failure to do so could Because circumstantial evidence is frequently result in disciplinary action. the basis upon which antitrust liability is found, Sappi also must avoid even the appearance of Sappi might conduct internal ad hoc compliance anticompetitive conduct. investigations or enquiries with any employees should it consider it necessary. Each employee must understand and comply with antitrust laws as they may bear upon his or Conclusion her activities and decisions. It is the It is in the interest of Sappi and its employees to responsibility of regional managers and comply with antitrust laws and employees are supervisors to ensure such compliance. Any therefore obliged to fully understand them or employee found to have participated knowingly consult with the respective legal departments to or negligently in violating antitrust laws will be stay abreast of changes to the applicable rules subject to disciplinary action, and sanctions to ensure full compliance. might include dismissal. …continued overleaf Antitrust law compliance forms part of the Group Legal Compliance Program, and the Group Legal Department will report annually on its findings. This policy is available on sappi.com or on request from: [email protected] Tel +27 (0)11 407 8192 Copyright ©2020 Sappi Limited. All rights reserved. Document no SPOL-003-SL Revision no 4 Revision date 02 November 2020 www.sappi.com Group Competition Law Policy continued Competition law guidelines Vertical agreements Attempting or entering into an explicit or Purpose and use of guidelines implicit understanding with suppliers or These guidelines provide a basic orientation customers to stifle competition by any of the regarding antitrust compliance risks. They are following means: intended to help employees to recognise • Vertical price-fixing that is, where the sensitive situations, problem areas and manufacturer compels its distributor to behaviour that are and might be considered resell the product at a specified price (so- anticompetitive. called resale price maintenance or RPM), is prohibited in virtually all jurisdictions. The Black List – Per se prohibited behaviour Avoid the following practice at all times: The Grey List – Potentially prohibited behaviour Horizontal agreements Agreements with competitors Attempting or actually entering into an explicit In certain circumstances, agreements with or implicit understanding with actual and competitors may be considered permissible potential competitors to stifle competition by when their restrictions to competition are any of the following means: outweighed by efficiencies, eg improvements in • Fixing prices (this includes the actual price technology or production. Examples of such or any increases or any charges related to arrangements include the following: the product) • Joint technical or quality control standards, • Joint establishment of discounts/rebate or policy • Joint research and development ventures. • Fixing other terms and conditions (ie delivery, payment terms etc) When employees are proposing, or invited to • Division of territories (“we’ll stay out of your participate in, any arrangement with market if you stay out of ours”) competitors, they must inform and consult with • Division of customers (“we take these their Legal Department immediately and before customers, you take those customers”) the event. • Joint decisions on production output • Collective boycotts (ie where competitors Role and risks of trade/industry associations jointly boycott a supplier or customer) and information exchange • The exchange of sensitive business data It is acknowledged that trade associations have on prices, costs, sales or production a beneficial purpose and role to play in business • Collusive tendering (agreeing on terms of and industries. However, it is also true that trade tenders), and associations in various industries have been • Or any other behaviour that results in the misused to facilitate anticompetitive behaviour. outcomes listed above. Therefore, specific caution must be taken in representing Sappi at such associations. …continued overleaf www.sappi.com Group Competition Law Policy continued Tolerating, as well as actively participating in The types of conduct that may fall within the illicit behaviour, is general enough to expose scope of this prohibition include the following: Sappi and its representative to the applicable • Predatory (including below cost) or sanctions. Trade associations or similar formal excessive pricing or informal gatherings of competitors (ie • Discrimination with regards to prices, conferences and trade events) should have and discounts or rebates must follow a competition law policy. Suspect • Loyalty (or ‘fidelity’) discounts and rebates behaviour must be reported immediately to the (ie price reductions based on the purchase Legal Department. of requirements or a percentage of them) • The tying of separate products and Information exchange in trade associations services (ie making the sale of one product amongst competitors has become an area of or service conditional upon the purchase antitrust law that attracts significant attention by of other products or services) enforcement agencies. Information exchanges • Refusal to provide access to an essential in the form of company data between facility (such as an indispensable competitors through trade associations have intellectual property right) been misused in certain industries to facilitate • Full-line forcing (ie forcing a customer to or artificially manage market shares, market purchase a full line of products), and allocations or prices. As a rule of thumb, the • Refusal to supply. more aggregated and the more historical the information is the less likely it is that such data Merger control can be allocated to a specific company which Many jurisdictions around the world possess would otherwise raise antitrust concerns. Any some form of merger control legislation. These request or exchange of information via trade rules often require prior ‘notification’ of mergers, associations must, therefore, be checked or acquisitions and some types of joint ventures to verified with the legal department beforehand. the antitrust enforcement authorities concerned. The powers of these enforcement authorities Abuse of dominance may include mandatory suspension of the Many jurisdictions have legislation prohibiting transaction until the clearance is obtained, as the abuse of a dominant position or well as the power to prohibit such deals or to monopolisation. These rules aim to curb approve them subject to conditions. The failure abusive business practices of dominant players to notify and suspend the deal may also entail in the relevant product and geographic markets the imposition of hefty fines and divestiture. and, as a consequence, heavy fines are not uncommon. Because Sappi has different For these reasons, all mergers, acquisitions, market positions expressed in market share joint ventures and similar transactions must be concerning various locations and products, discussed with and cleared by the Legal Sappi employees should exercise caution and Department in advance. seek advice from the Legal Department before engaging in any activities which might be …continued overleaf considered an abuse if Sappi were deemed to have a dominant position in a particular market. www.sappi.com Group Competition Law Policy continued Guidelines on documents and electronic The following guidelines should be kept in mind records when writing or reading correspondence and The treatment of documents and electronic memoranda, including postings on social media communication is important because most legal sites: systems do not consider business-related • Do not use words suggestive of guilty or communications (eg ‘personal’ files, email, texts, surreptitious