Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd v Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22) [2022] ZACT 40; [2023] 1 CPLR 11 (27 September 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd demonstrated a sufficient interest in the merger proceedings, particularly regarding the competitive dynamics of the upstream and downstream markets and the potential for foreclosure. By agreement between the parties and with the Commission abiding, the Tribunal granted APL leave to intervene, limiting its participation to specified issues. The Tribunal set out the procedural rights of APL, including access to evidence, cross-examination, and participation in interlocutory proceedings, subject to confidentiality undertakings and third-party consent for confidential information. The Tribunal also directed the Commission to provide APL with the relevant non-confidential and, where permitted, confidential information, and imposed no order as to costs.

Court disposition

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings, with participation limited to specified issues and subject to procedural and confidentiality conditions.

Orders

  • APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings under section 53(1)(c) of the Competition Act.
  • APL's participation is limited to issues relating to competitive dynamics, potential foreclosure, downstream market impact, and merger conditions.
  • APL is granted procedural rights including attendance, evidence, argument, cross-examination, inspection of documents, and participation in interlocutory proceedings, subject to Tribunal limitations and timetables.
  • The Competition Commission must provide APL with a non-confidential version of the record within seven days.
  • The Commission must provide APL's legal representatives with access to information in the record, excluding confidential third-party information, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
  • The Commission must facilitate access to third-party confidential information for APL's legal representatives, subject to third-party consent and confidentiality undertakings.
  • APL's legal representatives must furnish confidentiality undertakings within seven days.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Neopak Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Competition Commission of South Africa

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Days for Commission to Provide Non Confidential Record: ZAR 7
  • Days for Commission to Provide Third Party Confidential Information After Consent: ZAR 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Intervention Application / Order Granting Leave to Intervene in Merger Proceedings

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd argued that its interests may be adversely affected by the proposed merger between Corruseal Group and Neopak Holdings, particularly regarding access to recycled paper at competitive prices and the potential foreclosure of its business. APL sought intervention to address competitive dynamics, possible foreclosure, and the impact on downstream competition, as well as to participate in any conditions regulating the merger.
Respondent
Corruseal Group, Neopak Holdings, and the Competition Commission did not oppose APL's intervention, agreeing to the scope of intervention and the procedural rights sought, subject to confidentiality undertakings and Tribunal-imposed limitations. The Commission abided by the Tribunal's decision and agreed to facilitate access to non-confidential and, with consent, confidential information.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 53(1)(c) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998

    A party with a material interest in the outcome of merger proceedings may be granted leave to intervene, subject to limitations imposed by the Tribunal.

  2. 02

    Competition Tribunal Practice and Procedure

    Access to confidential information in merger proceedings may be granted to legal representatives of intervening parties, subject to appropriate confidentiality undertakings and third-party consent.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd demonstrated a sufficient interest in the merger proceedings, particularly regarding the competitive dynamics of the upstream and downstream markets and the potential for foreclosure. By agreement between the parties and with the Commission abiding, the Tribunal granted APL leave to intervene, limiting its participation to specified issues. The Tribunal set out the procedural rights of APL, including access to evidence, cross-examination, and participation in interlocutory proceedings, subject to confidentiality undertakings and third-party consent for confidential information. The Tribunal also directed the Commission to provide APL with the relevant non-confidential and, where permitted, confidential information, and imposed no order as to costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of intervening parties with the need to protect confidential information, particularly third-party interests.
  • The order clarifies that intervention in merger proceedings is subject to ongoing Tribunal oversight and procedural timetables.

Court disposition

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings, with participation limited to specified issues and subject to procedural and confidentiality conditions.

  • APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd is granted leave to intervene in the merger proceedings under section 53(1)(c) of the Competition Act.
  • APL's participation is limited to issues relating to competitive dynamics, potential foreclosure, downstream market impact, and merger conditions.
  • APL is granted procedural rights including attendance, evidence, argument, cross-examination, inspection of documents, and participation in interlocutory proceedings, subject to Tribunal limitations and timetables.
  • The Competition Commission must provide APL with a non-confidential version of the record within seven days.
  • The Commission must provide APL's legal representatives with access to information in the record, excluding confidential third-party information, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
  • The Commission must facilitate access to third-party confidential information for APL's legal representatives, subject to third-party consent and confidentiality undertakings.
  • APL's legal representatives must furnish confidentiality undertakings within seven days.
  • No order as to costs.

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

Order

[2022] ZACT 40

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case Number: IM196Mar22/INT086Aug22

In the intervention application of:

APL CARTONS (PTY) LTD Applicant

And

CORRUSEAL GROUP (PTY) LTD First Respondent

NEOPAK HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA Third Respondent

In re the intermediate merger between:

CORRUSEAL GROUP (PTY) LTD Primary Acquiring Firm

NEOPAK HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Primary Target Firm

Panel

: A Wessels (Presiding Member)

: M Mazwai (Tribunal Member)

: L Mncube (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

: 23 September 2022

Decided on : 27 September 2022

ORDER

On application by APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd (“APL”) to intervene as a participant in the above matter and by agreement between APL and the First and Second Respondents, and as abided by the Competition Commission, the Tribunal hereby orders the following:

1. The applicant, APL, is granted leave to intervene in the consideration of the intermediate merger proceedings before the Tribunal under the abovementioned case number in terms of section 53(1)(c) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998, as amended.

2. APL's participation in the proceedings shall be limited to the following issues or theories of harm:

2.1. the competitive dynamics of the upstream and downstream markets;

2.2. the potential for the merger to result in the foreclosure of APL as a consequence of Corruseal limiting or eliminating APL's ability to procure recycled paper at competitive prices from Neopak's mill;

2.3. the consequent adverse impact on competition in the downstream market for the supply of corrugated cartons; and

2.4. any conditions which may be proposed to regulate the merger, if it were to be approved. (collectively the “Scope of Intervention”)

3. Subject to the Scope of Intervention, APL’s participation in the merger proceedings shall include the right to:

3.1. attend all pre-hearing conferences;

3.2. adduce factual evidence and present argument;

3.3. request the Tribunal to direct, summon and/or order any person to appear at the hearing, or to produce any book, document or item for purposes of such hearing;

3.4. cross-examine witnesses;

3.5. inspect any books, documents and other items filed by any participants in the merger proceedings, including inspection by APL’s legal representatives, subject to appropriate confidentiality undertakings, of any information filed by any participants subject to a claim of confidentiality;

3.6. access to the Commission's file which has been referred to the Tribunal in this matter (“Record”), including access by APL’s legal representatives, subject to appropriate confidentiality undertakings, to information contained in the record which is subject to a claim of confidentiality; and

3.7. participate in any interlocutory proceedings.

4. The applicant’s rights granted in paragraph 3 above will be subject to:

4.1. any limitations on their exercise imposed by the Tribunal from time to time during the course of the proceedings; and

4.2. adherence by the applicant to any timetable set by the Tribunal for the proceedings before it in respect of the merger.

5. The Commission is directed to provide APL with a non-confidential version of the Record within 7 (seven) days of this order.

6. The Commission is directed to provide APL’s legal representatives with access to any information other than confidential third-party information contained in the Record, which is subject to a claim of confidentiality, subject to appropriate confidentiality undertakings by APL’s legal representatives.

7. The Commission is directed to facilitate access by APL’s legal representatives to third-party confidential information contained in the Record, subject to appropriate confidentiality undertakings by APL’s legal representatives. Such third-party confidential information will be provided to APL’s legal representatives only if the relevant third party has given its consent, and within 3 (three) days of such consent having been provided by the third party.

8. APL’s legal representatives are directed to furnish the Commission with the requisite confidentiality undertakings within 7 (seven) days of this order.

9. There is no order as to costs.

Presiding Member

Mr A Wessels

Concurring: Ms Mondo Mazwai and Prof Liberty Mncube

Date: 27 September 2022

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 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.