IAS Gyan

Daily News Analysis


28th August, 2023 Economy

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: The Hindu

Context: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently taken action against two entities for violating the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, by not seeking prior approval for their acquisition of shares in UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Ltd (UPL SAS), a subsidiary of UPL Ltd.


  • The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for regulating competition and preventing anti-competitive practices in the Indian market. When the CCI finds that parties have engaged in gun jumping, it can impose penalties to discourage such practices and ensure that companies adhere to the established merger control process. These penalties serve as a deterrent and reinforce the importance of obtaining regulatory approval before taking any actions that could affect competition.
  • Companies need to be aware of the legal requirements and restrictions related to mergers and acquisitions to avoid gun-jumping and the potential legal consequences associated with it.

Gun Jumping


  • Gun jumping refers to the situation where parties involved in a proposed merger or acquisition prematurely take actions that could potentially have an impact on competition before obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals.
  • In other words, it's when merging companies start integrating their operations or coordinating their activities before receiving clearance from the relevant competition authority. Gun jumping undermines the purpose of merger control regulations, which are designed to ensure fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices.

In the context of competition and merger control, gun-jumping can include activities such as:

  • Integration of Operations: This involves the merging companies taking steps to combine their operations, resources, or management before obtaining regulatory approval. This premature integration can lead to anti-competitive effects, as it might lessen competition in the market before the relevant authorities have assessed the potential impact of the merger.
  • Transfer of Control: Transferring control over assets, employees, or decision-making authority before regulatory clearance can be problematic. Such transfers can have a significant impact on the competitive landscape, potentially creating advantages for the merging parties that distort fair competition.
  • Price Coordination: Coordinating prices or sharing competitively sensitive information before receiving official approval can harm the market's competitive dynamics. This coordination could lead to collusion, where the merging parties agree to fix prices or other terms to their advantage, ultimately harming consumers and competitors.
  • Customer Allocation: If merging companies allocate specific customers or markets between themselves before obtaining regulatory clearance, it can result in reduced competition in those areas. This practice limits consumer choice and can lead to higher prices or reduced quality of products or services.
  • Exchange of Sensitive Information: Sharing sensitive information, such as future pricing strategies, business plans, or market insights, can provide the merging parties with an unfair advantage. This advantage can hinder competition and potentially lead to outcomes that are not in the best interest of consumers and the market as a whole.


  • Fines and Penalties: Regulatory authorities can impose fines and penalties on parties engaged in gun jumping. These fines are intended to discourage premature integration and coordination that could harm competition. The fines can be substantial and can vary based on the jurisdiction and severity of the violation.
  • Unwinding of Transactions: In some cases, the competition authority might require the parties to unwind the actions taken during the gun-jumping period. This could involve reversing integration efforts, returning assets, or restoring the competitive landscape to its pre-transaction state.
  • Damage to Reputation: Gun jumping can lead to negative publicity and damage the reputation of the merging parties. It could signal a lack of respect for regulatory processes and competition laws.
  • Delays and Uncertainty: Engaging in gun jumping could lead to delays in the approval process as regulatory authorities scrutinize the transaction more closely. It could also introduce uncertainty into the transaction timeline and outcome.
  • Legal Proceedings: In addition to administrative fines, gun-jumping could lead to legal actions brought by competitors, customers, or other affected parties who believe that the premature integration has harmed their interests.
  • Impact on Merger Review: Gun-jumping violations could influence the competition authority's decision-making process when reviewing the merger. The authority might view the parties as less cooperative or more likely to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

Steps that parties to a merger or acquisition should take to prevent gunjumping

  • Implement Clear Protocols and Safeguards: Establish protocols that restrict the exchange of sensitive information between the merging parties before regulatory approval. Implementing confidentiality agreements and information barriers can help prevent the sharing of information that could lead to anti-competitive behaviour.
  • Conduct Due Diligence in a Controlled Manner: During the due diligence process, ensure that the information exchange is conducted under controlled and supervised conditions. Limit the scope of information shared to what is necessary for assessing the transaction's viability, and avoid sharing competitively sensitive data that could potentially lead to anti-competitive behaviour.
  • Maintain Separate Operations: Until the regulatory authorities approve, the merging parties need to continue operating independently. This includes refraining from any actions that might be interpreted as integrating operations, coordinating strategies, or exerting control over each other's businesses.
  • Seek Legal Advice: Engage legal experts who specialize in competition law and merger control. They can guide navigating the complex regulatory landscape, help you understand the antitrust implications of the transaction, and ensure that you follow the correct procedures.
  • Training and Awareness: Ensure that employees, particularly those involved in the M&A process, are aware of the regulations and the consequences of gun-jumping. Training can help prevent inadvertent violations due to a lack of awareness.
  • Regular Monitoring and Reporting: Establish mechanisms for regularly monitoring and reporting any actions or developments that could potentially be considered as gun jumping. This proactive approach can help address any issues promptly and demonstrate compliance.

By following these practices, merging parties can minimize the risk of gun-jumping, ensure that their transaction process is in line with competition laws, and avoid the legal and reputational repercussions associated with premature integration.

Must Read Articles:

Competition Commission of India (CCI): https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/competition-commission-of-india-cci

THE COMPETITION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2022: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/the-competition-amendment-bill-2022


Q. The term “gun jumping” is frequently seen in the news, it is related with;

A) Malware

B) Defence System

C) New Missile system

D) Business Activities

Answer:  D