In today's Morgunblaðið, there is an article by Árni Pétur Jónsson, CEO of Teymi, which raises questions about the administrative conduct of the Competition Authority in the case currently before it concerning Teymi hf. Particular objection is taken to the authority's administrative procedures in its handling of the merger between IP Telecom (Hive) and Odýra Símafélagið, which after the merger operates under the Tals brand. On this occasion, the Competition Authority wishes to make the following statement:
The article claims that the Competition Authority requested that meetings concerning the original merger case be „non-meetings“, or meetings that had never formally taken place. It is true that the Competition Authority held meetings with the merging parties in connection with their notification of the aforementioned merger. The CEO of Teymis initially approached the Competition Authority and requested a confidential meeting. The Competition Authority did not request that the meetings with the merger parties be „non-meetings“. On the contrary, they were part of the Authority's investigation.
The article also states that the CEO of Teymir was asked to withdraw a letter from the company to the Competition Authority, and that the authority considered the letter had never been received. The reality is that early in the process, the Competition Authority expressed its view that the merger could hamper competition in the telecommunications market. In the aforementioned letter from Teymi, it was rejected that the Competition Authority had grounds for intervention, and further justification for such intervention was requested from the institution. At a meeting with Teymi, the authority's views were further substantiated. Teymi subsequently agreed to comply with conditions intended to ensure the competitive independence of Tal. The merging parties signed a settlement in the matter, which formed the basis for the Competition Authority's decision. No. 36/2008. By agreeing to comply with the conditions, the merging parties also, by virtue of the nature of the case, accepted the Competition Authority's view on the merger's anti-competitive effects. Consequently, Team withdrew its previous objections. It should be noted that the aforementioned letter from Team forms part of the case file.
The article then raises questions about whether it is appropriate for a former employee of Síminn, who is now an employee of the Competition Authority, to lead a raid at Teymi, whether it is appropriate that two former chief executives of Síminn are appointed to the board of Tal, whether it is appropriate that the Competition Authority removes only the majority shareholder's representatives from the board of Tal but does not replace all the board members, and demand that the Articles of Association and regulations of Tal be circumvented when convening meetings.
It is true that one employee of the Competition Authority is a former employee of Síminn, and the same is also true of another of the board members whom the authority appointed to the board of Tal. Neither of them has any conflict of interest with the company they worked for several years ago. It is vital that parties with comprehensive knowledge of the telecommunications market are involved in resolving this matter.
The Competition Authority's involvement in this matter is based on its reason to believe that Team's involvement in the management and operation of Tal reduces Tal's competitive independence vis-à-vis Vodafone, which is also owned by Team. To ensure Tal's competitive independence while the case is under investigation, the Competition Authority ordered that the chairman and the finance director of Teymir should step down from Tal's board and that independent directors be elected in their place. The Competition Authority considered the changes urgent and therefore recommended that the company's shareholders waive the notice period for the shareholders' meeting, as permitted under the Companies Act.
"*" indicates required fields
