Competition Authority Suspects Amishergaz and Pazgaz Distributed to the Market in High School to Achieve High Prices through Competition Prevention

• Gas cylinders for Paz Gas // Photo: Joshua Yosef

The Competition Authority filed an indictment with the Amisragas District Court, the Vice President of Marketing, Shimon Horowitz, a sales agent for the company and against a customer acquisition and retention manager at Pazgas, due to suspicion of a distribution market for home gas supply customers in Be'er Sheva.

According to the indictment, the defendants were parties to a settlement whereby, among other things, Amisragas would not compete with Pegasus for home customers in Be'er Sheva. The arrangement came on the back of the fact that domestic customers did not actually switch between the central companies in Be'er Sheva, Amisragas, Pazgas and Supergas, which together supply more than 85% of the gas supplied through domestic customers to Be'er Sheva.

The arrangement took shape in the face of increased competitive activity, which was followed by a gas department, which in the second half of 2016 contacted Amisragas and Pazgaz home customers in Be'er Sheva and offered low prices with a view to transferring customers.

Against the backdrop of the contest, the suspects reportedly communicated information to each other about the gas dogs' competitive actions and the moves they were preparing to take against gas dogs. As part of this, they also reached an agreement between them on existing customers of the companies in Be'er Sheva. The indictment states that between 2016 and 2014, with the exception of three aggregators, no domestic customers who consumed gas from Amirgas or Pazgaz were consumed in Be'er Sheva to consume sugary gas or vice versa.

The case was investigated by the Competition Authority's Investigation Department. The lawyers are represented by lawyers Ork Belkin and Osnat Schlesinger. We note that in March 2017, the home gas department gas company filed a lawsuit with the Central District Court against three major gas companies: Pazgas,

Suffragment and Amiragus. The company demanded compensation in the amount of NIS 71 million because these companies tried to eliminate it because it challenged them competitively.

According to the lawsuit filed at the time, "Defendants did not incur forgery, deception, fraud and unreasonable pressure on actual customers and the power of a gas department."

Amisragas said in response: "The indictment has not yet been duly devised for Amisragas. After his invention, he will be studied and will respond to it in accordance with the accepted pipelines. Pazgas did not respond.