The media has reported criticism.
of the CEO of Brim towards the Competition Authority, which was expressed in his published speech.
is in the association's annual report. It criticises the Competition Authority for having
involvement in mergers of companies in the fishing industry for the past 15 years despite
the Fisheries Management Act, which limits the maximum ownership of each company on
fisheries resources, go much further than competition law regarding merger or
mergers of companies in the fishing industry. The address then states that significant delays have
subject to the regulator's approval of Brim's acquisition of the seafood companies
Comb and Grey-brook „and the consequence of these delays was a loss for all the companies and
its staff“. If these delays were unjustified.
For this reason and for the benefit of
In an informed discussion on competition matters, it is right to report on investigations.
The competition authority's merger control or review of potential takeovers in companies concerning
Brim or affiliated companies. It is clear that most of the observations have been initiated
Brims and related companies (merger matter). There have been no undue delays in
their treatment.
In this connection, it is right to recall
that the purpose of competition law merger rules is, among other things, to counteract harmful
market concentration, which can harm the interests of customers, competitors and
of the public. Thus, competition can be harmed, for example, by a dominant market position.
is created or strengthened. Fisheries companies operate in diverse markets,
including markets for the trading of fishing rights, specific types of fishing,
processing of seafood, fish markets, export of products, etc. Consolidation of various
these markets can have detrimental consequences for the Icelandic public and
the economy.
The Competition Authority is also legally required to monitor
with the development of competitive and business practices in individual markets in Icelandic
business life and examine the management and ownership relationships between companies, cf.
More specifically, paragraph d of Article 8 of the Competition Act.
The following are matters that were concerned
have had mergers or acquisitions related to Brim in the last four years:
1. Observation of
whether a notifiable merger took place when Brim (now ÚR) acquired
a stake in HB Granda (now Brim)
Start of an investigation into possible
The period was from 6 July 2018 to 12 December 2018.
According to Article 17a of the Competition Act
Mergers resulting from changes in control must be notified.
Fisheries companies are not exempt from competition law, nor are they
neither one nor the other. Under consideration was whether such a reporting obligation would have
to be established.
The Competition Authority's conclusion
was that it could not be asserted, against the unequivocal refusal of the associations, that
Útgerðarfélag Reykjavíkur would have acquired control of Brim. It was stated that the matter
might possibly be taken up again if further indications were to emerge which suggested
to control.
The merger partners announced the acquisition.
on 6 November 2018. Decision
No. 30/2018 was available as of 22 November 2018. The merger was
Approved without comments in Phase I (within 25 working days).
On 20 August 2019, the merging parties informed
The Competition Authority regarding the acquisition of Seafood Services, which, in their opinion, were not, however
notification requirement. The Competition Authority decided not to exercise its authority to
of calling for a merger notification regarding the case. The case was concluded in under 15
working days.
The merger partners announced the acquisition.
on 16 December 2018. Decision
No. 19/2020 was due by 6 May 2019, within the statutory
postponed (Phase II) and the merger was approved without objections. It should be noted that
could be that the merger notification from the merging parties was initially assessed as insufficient. None
There are therefore sound arguments for the CEO's claims about undue delays in the handling.
the case on behalf of the Competition Authority.
The matter was taken into consideration and
it is argued that the Reykjavík Fishing Company and associated parties would take over
Dominance in Brimi Thus, the Competition Authority had taken into consideration whether
that the merger was based on broader control than had been announced.
The merger parties objected to the regulator's preliminary assessment.
The investigation was conducted by
The Competition Authority is examining whether Brim's purchase of Kambi and Grábrók had
adverse effects on competition if the wider control over Brimi were proposed
fundamental. The conclusion was that this was not the case and the merger was approved without
comments.
However, it was announced that action would be taken
for further consideration, in another matter, in light of changed circumstances and new
information as to whether a controlling interest has been acquired in Brim, which should have been notified
in accordance with the law (see next item).
On 10 July 2020, it was launched.
an investigation into whether joint control has been established in Brimi and whether
the duty to notify and the prohibition on a merger taking place have been breached
implemented. The research includes, among other things, whether when assessing dominance in Brimi, it should be
are looking at the shareholding of KG Fish Processing in Brim, but the company is owned by a brother
the CEO of Brim, who is also the main shareholder of Útgerðarfélag Reykjavíkur.
The investigation is not complete. At this stage, it is not possible to say when
She is similar, but the pressure from other projects can affect that.
The translation was discussed in more detail.
mergers control in fisheries and majority stake in Brim in a news article on the homepage
of the supervisory authority on 8 May 2020, see more details here.
Then the Competition Authority has
recently discussed dominance in fisheries, see further here.
"*" indicates required fields
