In April 2014, both companies had announced a global merger, which could lead to a combined capacity of 427 million tonnes (mt), ahead of the China’s Anhui Conch (currently 227 mt). This had raised the eyebrows of anti-trust watchdogs in several countries. On Monday, both companies announced to overcome regulatory hurdles, they would sell assets in Europe, Canada, Brazil and the Philippines, which had generated euro 5.2 billion in revenue and euro 744 million in earnings last year, to CRH.
“Should there be any need to make additional divestments in any jurisdiction where regulatory approval is still pending, those divestments will be dealt with in a separate process,” said a Holcim spokesperson. This means there could be separate bidding for such assets in India, if these are up for sale. Kumar Mangalam Birla-promoted UltraTech has already informed investment bankers of its interest in such assets.
The global giants expect to complete their merger by June this year. Holcim said its “dialogue with the regulatory body (CCI) is ongoing”.
“The Holcim-Lafarge deal has competition concerns, as evidenced by the CCI seeking objections from affected persons under section 29(2) of the Competition Act,” says Amitabh Kumar, partner at corporate law firm J Sagar Associates.
However, a conditional nod, as in the case of the Sun-Ranbaxy deal, is a possibility. “The conditions imposed will depend on the market definition adopted by the agency, which might ask for divestiture if the markets are defined narrowly, based on geographies,” says Kumar from J Sagar Associates.
“The only problem with the India merger will be in eastern India, where Lafarge might have to shed two-three mt of capacities. If it is done, I do not think CCI will be a hurdle for the merger and it can get an approval,” says Piyush Jain, equity research analyst at Morningstar India.
That the cement sector is under scrutiny is clear. In June 2012, CCI had imposed a penalty of Rs 6,307 crore on 11 leading cement makers for forming a cartel to charge higher prices from consumers. Subsequently, the cement companies had moved the Competition Appellate Tribunal, which had asked them to deposit 10 per cent of the penalty while the hearing proceeded. The Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the tribunal’s order.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)