Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Adcorp holdings Limited v Kelly Group Limited (019364) [2014] ZACT 107 (26 November 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the merged entity would hold market shares below 10% in each relevant market, with the transaction resulting in a market share accretion of no more than 4%. The market is highly fragmented, with numerous viable competitors such as Transman (Pty) Ltd, Workforce Group, the Focus Group, and Cozens Recruitment Group. Barriers to entry are low, as evidenced by the entry of more than 100 new firms in the preceding year and the minimal requirements for new entrants. The geographic market is national, facilitated by electronic recruitment methods. No public interest concerns were identified. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and raises no public interest concerns, warranting unconditional approval.

Court disposition

The merger is unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The acquisition by Adcorp Holdings Limited of Kelly Group Limited is approved without conditions.
  • No public interest conditions are imposed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Adcorp Holdings Limited

Applicant Counsel: Anthony Norton and Anton Roets

Kelly Group Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Adcorp Pre Merger Shareholding in Kelly (%): 29.8
  • Merged Entity Market Share in Relevant Markets (%): 10
  • Market Share Accretion Due to Transaction (%): 4

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Adcorp argued that Kelly is a complementary business and the merger would create a diversified and specialised resourcing and solution provider, yielding financial and operational benefits. Adcorp emphasised that its core strength lies in blue collar recruitment, while Kelly specialises in white collar recruitment. The transaction was presented as beneficial to shareholders, who had publicly accepted the offer.
Respondent
Kelly submitted that the merging parties operate in different recruitment segments, with Adcorp focusing on blue collar and Kelly on white collar recruitment. Kelly's shareholders supported the transaction, indicating their belief in its value. The parties argued that the merger would not negatively impact competition due to the fragmented nature of the market and the presence of numerous competitors.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, taking into account market shares, barriers to entry, and the presence of viable competitors.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed in merger proceedings, including the effect on employment and the ability of small businesses to compete.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the merged entity would hold market shares below 10% in each relevant market, with the transaction resulting in a market share accretion of no more than 4%. The market is highly fragmented, with numerous viable competitors such as Transman (Pty) Ltd, Workforce Group, the Focus Group, and Cozens Recruitment Group. Barriers to entry are low, as evidenced by the entry of more than 100 new firms in the preceding year and the minimal requirements for new entrants. The geographic market is national, facilitated by electronic recruitment methods. No public interest concerns were identified. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and raises no public interest concerns, warranting unconditional approval.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that switching costs for customers are minimal and that clients readily shift between providers, further reducing any potential anti-competitive effects.
  • The Tribunal observed that the recruitment industry is evolving, with technology enabling national reach and lowering barriers to entry for new firms.

Court disposition

The merger is unconditionally approved.

  • The acquisition by Adcorp Holdings Limited of Kelly Group Limited is approved without conditions.
  • No public interest conditions are imposed.

Source and reliance status

Competition Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Judgment

[2014] ZACT 107

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 019364

In the matter between:

ADCORP

HOLDINGS LIMITED

Primary acquiring firm(s)

And

KELLY

GROUP LIMITED

Primary target firm(s)

Panel

: Yasmin Carrim (Presiding Member)

: Andreas Wessels (Tribunal Member)

: Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 29 October 2014

Order Issued on : 29 October 2014

Reasons Issued on : 26 November 2014

Reasons for Decision

Approval

[1] On 29 October 2014 the Competition Tribunal ('Tribunal") unconditionally approved an acquisition by Adcorp Holdings Limited of Kelly Group Limited.

[2] The reasons for unconditionally approving the transaction follow hereunder.

Parties to the Transaction

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is Adcorp Holdings Limited ("Adcorp"), a firm incorporated in terms of the laws of South Africa and involved in the provision of a range of recruitment and business process outsourcing services.[1] Adcorp is South Africa's largest diversified human capital provider and is a public company listed on the Johannesburg Securities

Exchange Limited ("the JSE").[2] As such Adcorp is not controlled, directly or indirectly, by any single entity.

Primary target firm

[4] The primary target firm is Kelly Group Limited ("Kelly"), also listed on the JSE and not controlled by any single entity. Kelly is involved in the provision of a range of recruitment and staffing services throughout South Africa. [3]

Proposed Transaction

[5] Pre-merger, Adcorp holds 29.8% of the issued share capital in Kelly and it aims, through the proposed transaction, to raise that figure to 100%. The proposed transaction involves Adcorp, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, making offers for the entire share capital to existing Kelly shareholders.[4] Once Adcorp acquires sole control over Kelly, it plans to delist it from the JSE.

Rationale

[6] Adcorp submits that Kelly is largely a complementary business and the proposed transaction thus represents an opportunity to establish a "diversified and specialised resourcing and solution provider' likely to provide "a number of financial and operational benefits..."[5]

[7] Kelly similarly submits that the merging parties' core competencies are in different areas of recruitment with Adcorp's primary strength in blue collar recruitment and Kelly's in white collar recruitment. Kelly's shareholders have publicly accepted the offer and thus presumably consider the transaction to offer a worthwhile return on investment.

Relevant Market(s) and Competition Analysis

[8] Both the Commission and the merging parties submit that the relevant product markets are as follows:

1. The market for the provision of temporary recruitment services;

2. The market for the provision of permanent recruitment services;

3. The market for the provision of blue collar recruitment services;

4. The market for the provision of white collar recruitment services;

5. The market for the provision of temporary blue collar recruitment services;

6. The market for the provision of temporary white collar recruitment services;

7. The market for the provision of permanent blue collar recruitment services; and

8. The market for the provision of permanent white collar recruitment services.[6]

[9] The Commission and the merging parties are similarly in agreement regarding geographic market and submit that it is national in

scope.[7]

[10] Within each the abovementioned markets, the Commission submits that the merged entity will hold a market share of below 10%, with the transaction accounting for accretion of no higher than 4%. The Commission considered these figures to be low and found that there are numerous viable alternative players in the market. The Commission found that competitors such as Transman (Pty) Ltd, Workforce Group, the Focus Group and Cozens Recruitment Group would continue to place a competitive constraint on the merged entity.

[11] In addition to low market shares and the fact that the merged entity will continue to face constraints from viable competitors, the Commission's investigation revealed that barriers to entry are low[8] and a multitude of new entrants entered the market in the last year.[9]

Public Interest

[12] The proposed transaction raises no public interest concerns and nothing more in respect thereof warrants mention here.

Conclusion

[13] In sum, the merged entity will hold market shares of below 10% in each relevant market, howsoever defined. We do not consider this figure as concerning and the merged entity will remain constrained by numerous players in this highly fragmented market. Barriers to entry appear low, switching costs are minimal and customers readily shift.

[14] In light of the above we concur with the Commission's view that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and raises no public interest concerns. Accordingly we hereby approve the transaction unconditionally.

Ms YASMIN CARRIM

Mr Andreas Wessels and Ms Fiona Tregenna concurring

26 November 2014

DATE

Tribunal Researcher:

Shannon Quinn

For the merging parties: Anthony Norton and Anton Roets of Nortons Inc.

For the Commission:

Gilberto Biacuana and Lindiwe Khumalo

[1] This includes the provision of services related to flexible staffing, permanent recruitment and training.

[2] A breakdown of Adcorp's largest shareholders appears at page 6 of the Record.

[3] This includes the provision of scarce skills searches, skills development and online talent management.

[4] Existing Kelly shareholders will be offered, in exchange for their Kelly shares, either shares in Adcorp or a cash payment.

[5] For further description of Adcorp's rationale, see page 70 of the Record.

[6] The discussion regarding relevant market appears in the Commission's Recommendation at pages 15-19

[7] At the hearing of this matter, the Commission informed the Tribunal that it considered the geographic market as national in light of the fact that interviews are increasingly being conducted electronically over programmes such as Skype or telephonically and recruiters are thus able to recruit and place individuals anywhere in the country

[8] Robert Walters, a competitor of the merging parties, submits that new entrants only require access to internet, a telephone line and an online job portal. Further, there are no regulatory barriers to entry.

[9] This was the submission of industry body African Professional Staffing Organisation (APSO) which submitted that the market has

witnessed more than 100 new entrants in the preceding year.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.