The first appeals lodged to the Competition Appeal Board (CAB) in June 2010 marked a milestone in the competition legal framework in Singapore. This together with rapid developments on the competition front initiated by the regulating authorities, have resulted in growing demand for legal advice in this area.
“The number of competition law compliance audits and dawn-raid training sessions we have conducted this year has surpassed the levels seen immediately prior to the introduction of competition law in 2006,” Drew & Napier director and co-head of the firm’s competition law practice group Lim Chong Kin told ALB.
On 4 June 2010, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) issued its first abuse-of-dominance infringement finding against open-ticketer SISTIC.com (SISTIC). A separate infringement finding was announced that same day regarding a bid-rigging case by electrical works engineers. The latter was yet another first in Singapore – where a party to the infringement conduct took advantage of the CCS’s leniency programme and benefitted from a 100% reduction in financial penalties. (The CCS’s leniency programme essentially allows cartel participants the ability to confess their involvement in cartel activity, and subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, potentially benefit from full immunity from prosecution or a reduction of up to 100% in the level of financial penalties).
According to Lim, the first-ever set of appeals lodged to the Competition Appeal Board (CAB) in respect to a CCS decision, was a notable development for 2010, with the CAB hearing those appeals in early June this year. In August, SISTIC also lodged an appeal against the CCS’s infringement finding against it.
“Once decided, the decisions of the CAB could potentially clarify the boundaries of competition law in Singapore significantly, particularly in respect of conduct that will be considered abusive of a dominant position, and in respect of the calculation of financial penalties for price-fixing cases,” Lim said.
In 2010, the landmark CCS decision that the Singapore Medical Association’s Guidelines on Fees was “likely to have the effect of preventing, restricting and distorting competition in Singapore” should send a clear signal to trade associations that agreed fee or price schedules are at great risk of scrutiny by the regulating body.
“These interesting and novel developments in the Singapore competition law environment have led businesses to be particularly careful in safeguarding themselves from competition law exposure,” Lim said. “With an increasing number of CCS infringement decisions being issued, there will also be an increasing number of appeals to the CAB in the years to come. Another ongoing focus area for competition law in Singapore will likely be with respect to the convergence of general and sectoral competition law over the next few years.”
WongPartnership competition and regulatory practice head Ameera Ashraf shared the same sentiments.
“The CCS is definitely getting more active and we expect to see a lot more investigations. The work we do is a combination of preventive compliance management as well as advising clients on investigations after the fact. We do expect more people approaching our firm (and others) to make sure that they are in compliance with competition regulation,” Ashraf said.
According to Ashraf, competition law developments in Singapore and in the region have meant that businesses need to be increasingly vigilant.
“If you enter into an agreement with a competitor – any type of agreement – it should be closely scrutinised. Many instances of collaboration between competitors will give rise to competition concerns. Businesses may not be aware that the exchange of non-price information or entering into a joint venture with a competitor could in some cases put them in breach of competition law, but it may do so,” Ashraf said.ALB
Other related stories:
