South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd v Tupperwave Holdings SA (LM160Nov20) [2021] ZACT 1 (6 January 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd and Tupperware Holdings SA would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The merging parties have minimal market shares in both the broad and narrow product markets, and there are numerous competitors who will continue to constrain the merged entity post-merger. The transaction does not raise any public interest concerns, as there are no anticipated retrenchments and only a change in senior management. Accordingly, the Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger.

Court disposition

The merger is unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction between Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd and Tupperware Holdings SA is unconditionally approved.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval of the merger.

02

Material facts

Parties

Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Mark Garden

Tupperware Holdings SA

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Combined Market Share in Beauty and Personal Care Products (2019): ZAR 2
  • Combined Market Share in Each Product Category Post Merger: ZAR 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the transaction is a strategic investment to diversify its portfolio and that the target firm is an attractive opportunity. The applicant submitted that the merger would not result in any competition concerns due to the low combined market shares and the presence of numerous competitors. No retrenchments or adverse public interest effects were anticipated, and the only change would be in senior management.
Respondent
The respondent, through the Commission, argued that although there is an overlap in the market for beauty and personal care products, the merging parties operate in different product segments, with Sunpac focusing on hair care and ASC on fragrances. The Commission found that the combined market shares are minimal and that the merger would not result in any competition concerns. The Commission also confirmed that no public interest concerns, such as retrenchments, would arise from the transaction.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 12A of the Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    A merger may not be approved if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, unless the parties show technological, efficiency or other pro-competitive gains outweigh the anti-competitive effects.

  2. 02

    Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    The Tribunal must consider public interest factors, including the effect on employment, when assessing a merger.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd and Tupperware Holdings SA would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The merging parties have minimal market shares in both the broad and narrow product markets, and there are numerous competitors who will continue to constrain the merged entity post-merger. The transaction does not raise any public interest concerns, as there are no anticipated retrenchments and only a change in senior management. Accordingly, the Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the only change in the business post-merger would be the replacement of the Chief Executive Officer, with no adverse impact on employees.
  • The Tribunal observed that the presence of many competitors in the market would continue to discipline the merged entity.

Court disposition

The merger is unconditionally approved.

  • The proposed transaction between Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd and Tupperware Holdings SA is unconditionally approved.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval of the merger.

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

[2021] ZACT 1

COMPETITTION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM160Nov20

In the matter between:

Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Tupperware Holdings SA Primary Target Firm

Panel: Ms M Mazwai (Presiding Member)

Mr E Daniels (Tribunal Member)

Mr A Wessels (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 18 December 2020

Order Issued on: 21 December 2020

Reasons Issued on: 06 January 2021

REASONS

FOR DECISION

APPROVAL

[1] On 18 December 2020, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) approved the proposed transaction whereby Bachique 813 (Pty) Ltd (“Bachique”) intends to acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Tupperware Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd (“Tupperware Holdings”).

[2] The reasons for the unconditional approval follow.

PARTIES

TO

THE

TRANSACTION

Primary Acquiring Firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is Bachique, a newly incorporated company established for the purpose of this transaction. Bachique is jointly controlled by Trinitas Equity Partners (Pty) Ltd (Trinitas) [...] and Forbes Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (FIH) […]. The remaining [...] of the shares in Bachique are held by Justin Hewett, the Chief Executive Officer of Bachique.

[4] Bachique does not control any firms. Post-merger, Trinitas and FIH will jointly control Bachique through minority protection and veto rights. Trinitas does not control any firm except Bachique. However, Trinitas holds interest in Trinitas Private Equity Partnership with a portfolio of investment in numerous firms, relevant to the transaction is the interest held in Main Street Holdings (Pty) Ltd which controls Sunpac (Pty) Ltd (“Sunpac”). FIH is wholly owned by Hilcona Holdings Ltd, a firm incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. In South Africa, FIH control various firms.

[5] Bachique has no business activities. The business activities of the firms which Trinitas and FIH control range from manufacturing and distribution of automotive products and commercial property investment.

[6] The activities of Sunpac, held by Main Street Holding are of most relevance to the proposed transaction. Sunpac is a distributor of branded and private label cosmetic, oral care, haberdashery and baby products to South African retailers. Sunpac is an exclusive distributor of the international brands in South Africa with the main focus of its distribution on hair care products.

Primary Target Firm

[7] The target firm is Tupperware Holdings SA, a private company incorporated in South Africa. Tupperware Holdings SA controls Avroy Shlain Cosmetics (Pty) Ltd (ASC) and Avroy Shlain Cosmetics (Botswana) (Pty) Ltd. Tupperware Holdings SA controls Avroy Shlain Cosmetics (Botswana) (Pty) Ltd through its controlling shareholding in ASC. Tupperware Holdings SA is ultimately controlled by

Tupperware Brands Corporation (U.S). Tupperware Brands Corporation (U.S) holds its plastic products business separately through Tupperware Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (South Africa).

[8] Tupperware Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (South Africa) does not form part of the proposed transaction as it is not part of the target firms. Essentially, the only business of relevance to this transaction is ASC.

[9] ASC develops, markets and supplies its own range of products that includes fragrances for men and women, colour cosmetics, skin, body and ethnic hair care products and fashion accessories (handbags, scarfs and travel bags). These products are sold through beauty advisors to the end customer.

PROPOSED

TRANSACTION

[10] Bachique will acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Tupperware Holdings SA. Upon implementation of the proposed transaction, Tupperware Holdings SA and all firms directly or indirectly controlled by it will be controlled by Bachique.

Rationale

[11] The acquiring firm is looking to expand its investment portfolio and has identified the target firm as an attractive investment opportunity to diversify and grow. In relation to the target firm, Tupperware Brands Corporation Group is looking to change its strategy and through this transaction the Tupperware Brand intends to dispose of its beauty businesses and focus its attention on its core business ( i.e., kitchen and household products, particularly plastic containers for food storage and preparation).

COMPETITION

ANALYSIS

[12] The Commission found that the proposed transaction results in an overlap as Sunpac and ASC operate in the broad market for manufacturing and supply of beauty and personal care products. Although Sunpac and ASC operate in the same market, the Commission found that Sunpac generates its revenue mainly from the sale of hair care products while ASC generates its revenue mainly from

the sale of fragrances. As such, the Commission found Sunpac and ASC to unlikely be each other’s closest competitors.

[13] The Commission evaluated the effects of the proposed transaction in the national market as both Sunpac and ASC supply their products nationally.

[14] The Commission assessed the market shares of the merging parties both broadly for the sale of beauty and personal care products and narrowly for each product segment. It found that Sunpac and ASC each held market shares in the broad market for beauty and personal care products below 1% in 2019 and will thus have a combined market share of less than 2% post-merger in South Africa. The Commission identified 30 market participants in the national market that the merging parties will continue to face competition from. These market rivals include Unilever, Avon Justine, Revlon, L,Oréal, Indigo Brands, Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive, amongst others.

[15] Furthermore, when the Commission assessed the merging parties’ market shares based on the total sales in each product category (narrow product markets, comprising fragrances, hair care products, skin care products and colour cosmetics respectively), the Commission found that the merging parties will have a combined market share of less than 5% post-merger in each product category.

[16] Therefore, the Commission was of the view that the merger is unlikely to result in any competition concerns as there are numerous competitors who will continue to constrain the merged entity post-merger. We found no reason to differ from this.

PUBLIC

INTEREST

[17] The proposed transaction does not result in any public interest concerns. There will be a change in the senior executive management whereby the existing Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director of ASC will exit the business and will be replaced by the previous Managing Director of ASC, Justin Hewett who previously held the position from 2009 to 2014.

[18] Apart from this change, there are no retrenchments of employees envisaged as a result of the proposed transaction.

CONCLUSION

[19] Based on the above, we are of the view that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any of the relevant markets. Furthermore, the proposed transaction does not raise any public interest concerns. We therefore unconditionally approved the transaction.

06 January 2021

Ms Mondo Mazwai Date

Mr Enver Daniels and Mr Andreas Wessels

Tribunal Case Managers: Lumkisa Jordan and Mpumi Tshabalala

For the merging parties: Mark Garden for ENS Africa

For the Commission: Themba Mahlangu and Raksha Darji

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.