Countdown to Merger Control! (Part II)

We are continuing our debate on the impending Merger Controls in India, effective 1st June, 2011. On the show this week, I have Bharat Vasani, Chief Legal and Group General Counsel at the Tata Group and a battle-weary campaigner for more rational Merger Controls; Veteran Merger and Acquisition (M&A) Lawyer, Peter King- he is Partner in the corporate group Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Amitabh Kumar- he represents the Regulator and the Regulated. He was the first Director General of the Competition Commission of India and was closely involved with the initial set of draft regulations on Merger Control. He has now crossed over to the private sector and is a Senior Advisor at JSA.

Below is a verbatim transcript of the interview. Also watch the video.
 
Doshi: I am told you believe that though the notifications have upped the thresholds substantially by 50%, the draft regulations still cast the net too wide and several everyday business transactions will also come into this net making business very difficult. Is that correct?
 
Vasani: I must, at the outset compliment, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that they have done a wonderful thing. They have increased the thresholds by almost 50% both for the turnover and the assets. They also kind of tried to alleviate the problems of large groups- like Tata and other groups- which are there in this country and they have also provided the target thresholds- the turnover and assets- which were originally missed out in the Act. Ideally, corporate India would have preferred that the law was amended to clear the material deficiencies or flaws which were there. As you all know that this law was drafted originally as a voluntary regime where the corporates were free to file if they believe that the merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions attracted or would have an adverse effect on competition in India. When they converted, based on the Parliamentary Standing Committee report, into a compulsory regime, I think perhaps certain changes which were required to be made were not carried out. As a result of which what we find that there is dichotomy or inconsistency. While we have the size of the person