The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has released a statement of issues raising preliminary competition concerns about Bingo’s proposed acquisition of Dial-a-Dump.
Bingo and Dial-a-Dump supply building and demolition (B&D) waste collection and processing services in the Greater Sydney area. Bingo and Dial-a-Dump are also future competitors for non-putrescible, or dry, landfill services when Bingo’s Patons Lane facility becomes operational in 2019.
“Post-acquisition, Bingo would be the largest B&D waste collector and processor and own a substantial amount of dry landfill capacity in Sydney. We are concerned about the effect of the proposed acquisition in relation to processing, landfill and collections,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims stated.
“Our preliminary view is that the acquisition would remove Bingo’s most substantial competitor for B&D waste processing, particularly in the Eastern Suburbs and inner Sydney. Although alternative facilities exist, our current view is that many are not viable alternatives as they either will not accept third party mixed B&D waste, charge significantly more for heavy loads, or are too far away to constrain Bingo from increasing prices.”
“The acquisition would remove future competition between Bingo’s and Dial-a-Dump’s dry landfills, which may lead to higher gate fees than would be likely without the acquisition. Competition between Sydney landfills is likely to become more important after the introduction of the Queensland landfill levy, which will make transporting waste to Queensland more expensive,” Mr Sims stated.
The three levels of the supply chain—collection, processing, and landfill—are also closely linked. Collectors rely on access to processing facilities at competitive rates to compete for customers, and processors rely on access to landfill. The ACCC is investigating these vertical integration issues.
The ACCC invites submissions from interested parties on the statement of issues by December 13, 2018. The ACCC’s final decision is scheduled for February 21, 2019.
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand