Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd and Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns (99/LM/Oct05) [2006] ZACT 25 (23 March 2006)
- Citation
- [2006] ZACT 25
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, Y Carrim, M Mokuena
- Case number
- 99/LM/Oct05
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, Y Carrim, M Mokuena
- Case number
- 99/LM/Oct05
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the merger is a vertical integration between an upstream manufacturer/importer (Barloworld Coatings) and a downstream distributor (Marouns) in the automotive refinish coatings market. The evidence showed that Barloworld Coatings held a 27% share in the upstream market, but there were numerous credible alternative suppliers. Marouns accounted for no more than 30% of the distribution market, with only seven outlets out of 185 nationally. Barloworld's presence in the panel beating market was minimal, owning only eight out of approximately 3000 panel shops. Third-party concerns about foreclosure and discriminatory pricing were not substantiated, as most complainants did not procure from Barloworld Coatings and competition remained robust. No public interest issues were identified that would alter the Tribunal's view. Accordingly, the merger was approved without conditions, as it was unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
Court disposition
Merger approved without conditions.
Orders
- The transaction between Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd and Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns is approved unconditionally.
- No conditions are imposed on the merger.
02
Material facts
Parties
Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: L DonaldsonProstart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns
Respondent Counsel: L DonaldsonAmounts and remedies
- Barloworld Coatings Market Share (upstream Refinish Coatings): 27
- Marouns Market Share (distribution Outlets): 30
- Number of Marouns Distribution Outlets: 7
- Total Distribution Outlets in South Africa: 185
- Number of Panel Shops Owned by Barloworld: 8
- Total Panel Shops in South Africa: 3,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Large Merger / Merger Clearance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed merger between Barloworld Coatings and Marouns will substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
- 02
Whether the transaction raises any public interest concerns under the Competition Act.
- 03
Whether the merger will result in foreclosure of competitors or discriminatory treatment of distributors.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Barloworld Coatings argued that the acquisition of Marouns is a defensive strategy to secure future distribution of its automotive paint brands. The transaction will realize a succession plan for Marouns and ensure stability for its business and employees. The parties submitted that Marouns already procured nearly all its refinish coatings from Barloworld Coatings pre-merger, and that there are numerous alternative suppliers in the market. They further committed to retaining current distributors and treating all distributors on a non-discriminatory basis.
- Respondent
- Third-party distributors expressed concerns that Barloworld Coatings would use additional sales margins post-merger to gain market share and potentially foreclose competitors. They argued that Marouns would have a pricing advantage and that the merger would alter the business model in the refinish industry. However, it was conceded that competition is fierce, there are many suppliers, and consumers may benefit from the merger.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in a relevant market, unless justified on public interest grounds.
- 02
Tribunal precedent
Vertical mergers are less likely to raise competition concerns where there are sufficient alternative suppliers and the merged entity does not control a significant share of the downstream market.
- 03
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
Public interest considerations must be assessed, 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 merger is a vertical integration between an upstream manufacturer/importer (Barloworld Coatings) and a downstream distributor (Marouns) in the automotive refinish coatings market. The evidence showed that Barloworld Coatings held a 27% share in the upstream market, but there were numerous credible alternative suppliers. Marouns accounted for no more than 30% of the distribution market, with only seven outlets out of 185 nationally. Barloworld's presence in the panel beating market was minimal, owning only eight out of approximately 3000 panel shops. Third-party concerns about foreclosure and discriminatory pricing were not substantiated, as most complainants did not procure from Barloworld Coatings and competition remained robust. No public interest issues were identified that would alter the Tribunal's view. Accordingly, the merger was approved without conditions, as it was unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the entry of Barloworld Coatings into the distribution level may alter the business model in the refinish industry, but this does not amount to a competition concern.
- It was acknowledged that consumers might be better off as a result of the merger due to increased competition and choice.
- The Tribunal welcomed the commitment by Barloworld Coatings to retain current distributors and appoint new ones on a non-discriminatory basis.
Court disposition
Merger approved without conditions.
- The transaction between Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd and Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns is approved unconditionally.
- No conditions are imposed on 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.
Competition Tribunal
Judgment
IN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: 99/LM/Oct05
In The Large Merger Between:
Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd Acquiring Firm
And
Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns Target Firm
Reasons for Decision
Approval
On the 15th December 2005 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate approving the transaction between Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd and Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Marouns. The reasons for this decision follow.
The Transaction
The primary acquiring firm is Barloworld Coatings (Pty) Ltd (âBarloworld Coatingsâ),1 a wholly owned subsidiary of Barloworld Ltd (âBarloworldâ). Barloworld is listed on the JSE Securities Exchange South Africa. 2
The primary target firm is Prostart Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Marouns (âMarounsâ).3 The shareholders of Marouns are J and V Trust, AMM Family Trust and CMW Family Trust and who hold 100% between themselves.
Barloworld Coatings is acquiring 85% of the issued share capital of Marouns. Barloworld Coatings will then dispose of between 10% and 15% of its shares in Marouns to a BEE partner. According to the parties, it is envisioned that the BEE partner will directly or indirectly take up a stake of up to 25% + 1 of the issued shared capital of Marouns in the near future.
For Barloworld Coatings, the transaction appears to be a defensive strategy since it is acquiring its largest distributor in order to secure future distribution of its automotive paint brands to the refinish segment of the market.4
For Marouns, the acquisition will ârealize a succession plan and ensure stability for the businessâ and will secure the jobs of its 300 employees countrywide.
The merging partiesâ activities
Barloworld has nine main operating divisions: Equipment, Industrial Distribution, Motor, Cement and Lime, Scientific, Coatings, Steel Tubes, Financial Services and Logistics.
Through its subsidiaries, Barloworld Coatings is active in the following segments of the coatings industry: decorative paint, automotive paint, industrial coatings, furniture coatings, colourants and complementary products such as paintbrushes and paint rollers.
Barloworld Coatings is licensed to manufacture automotive paint branded âSpies Heckerâ and âStandoxâ on behalf of Du Pont Performance Coatings, an international paint manufacturer.
Marouns is a distributor of refinish paint, ancillaries such as masking tape, plastic covers and polishing compound, and paint application and equipment products such as spray guns, extraction filters, bumpers and bonnets to panel shops. Marouns owns seven distribution outlets: five in Gauteng, one in KZN and one in the Western Cape.
Competition analysis
Both parties are active in the automotive paint industry. Below is a diagram of the supply chain in this industry.
Importers and manufacturers of refinish coatings
Distributors: Technical and Sales service
Panel shops and Panel beaters
The transaction is a vertical merger at two levels in this industry. The acquiring firm, Barloworld Coatings, is both an importer and a manufacturer of refinish coatings and thus operates in the upstream market. The target firm, Marouns, is a refinish paint distributor and thus operates at the next level downstream. However the acquiring group is also active in the last tier namely panel shops. Barloworldâs panel shops procure all their refinish requirements from Marouns.
The Commission identified following markets:
Upstream National market for the manufacture and/or supply of refinish coatings Downstream Regional market for the distribution of refinish coatings to panel shops and other customers Downstream market for the provision of panel beating services
The market for the manufacture and/or supply of refinish coatings
Even though an examination of the market shares provided by the parties shows that Barloworld coatings has a 27% market share, this market does not raise any vertical concerns as firstly, the Commissionâs investigations revealed that there are a number of credible alternate suppliers, and secondly, the parties have informed us that pre merger Marouns procured nearly all of its refinish coatings requirements from Barloworld Coatings, anyway.
The market for the distribution of refinish coatings to panel shops and other customers
According to the parties, Marouns owns 7 out of the 185 distribution outlets in South Africa. Of the seven, five are situated in Gauteng. The parties submit that market share information is not readily available but that Marouns accounts for not more than 30% of this market. Pre -merger, Barloworldâs panel shops sourced refinish coatings entirely from Marouns.
The market for the provision of panel beating services
According to the parties, there are approximately 3000 panel shops in South Africa, of which Barloworld owns only eight. We agree with the Commission that Barloworld is a very small player in this market and that the merger is unlikely to change the competitive landscape of this market.
Third Party Concerns
Some distributors had complained to the Commission inter alia that post merger Barloworld Coatings would use additional sales margins to gain market share thereby foreclosing some distributors. According to Commission, the majority of distributors who complained, supply other brands that are in direct competition with those of Barloworld Coatings and donât procure refinish coatings from Barloworld Coatings at all. Barloworld Coatings has nevertheless, undertaken to retain all of its current distributors and focus on appointing new ones and treat such distributors and its on a non-discriminatory basis.5
The Tribunal invited the complainants to the hearing held on 15 December 2005. Only Mr IP Ferreira from Balco Auto Colour Pretoria (âBalcoâ) attended6 although he requested Mr S Singh MD of Ducol, to make submissions on his behalf.7
It would appear that the main concern of Balco and Ducol was that the merger would change âthe business model in the refinish industryâ8 due to the fact that Barloworld Coatings was entering the distribution level of the industry. Mr Singh also placed on record their concern that Marouns would have a pricing advantage.
We are not convinced that these are valid competition concerns. Firstly both Balco and Ducol exclusively sell brands, which compete with those manufactured by Barloworld Coatings. Secondly, Mr Singh conceded that consumers might be âbetter offâ as a result of the merger. Thirdly, he further acknowledged that there were a number of suppliers, that competition was fierce in this market and that numerous new players had entered recently.
Conclusion
In light of the above, we are of the view that the transaction will not have an adverse effect on competition in any of the identified markets. There are no public interest issues which would alter our view. We therefore approve the transaction without conditions.
___ 23 March 2006
N Manoim Date
Concurring: Y Carrim and M Mokuena
For the merging parties: L Donaldson (Sonnenberg Hoffmann and Galombik Attorneys)
For the Commission: H Ratshisusu and K Theron (Mergers and Acquisitions)
1 A list of Barloworld Coatingsâ subsidiaries and associate companies can be found on page 250-1 of the record.
2 A list of shareholders who hold more than 1% of Barloworldâs shareholding can be found on page 3 of the Commissionâs Report. Barloworld controls a number of subsidiaries, a list of which can be found on page 238 of the record.
3 A list of Prostartâs subsidiaries can be found on page 257 of the record.
4 Page 10 of the economic report submitted by the merging parties.
5 At paragraph 8 on Page 502 of the Commissionâs Record. See letter from Barloworld Coatings to Commission.
6 Balco is a competitor of Marouns, with franchises operating nationally.
7 Mr Singh had assisted Mr Ferreira in the preparation of his submission.
8 Page 5 of the transcript.
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.