Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

BOE Private Equity (Pty) Ltd and Another v Heritage Capital Fund (LM182Sep18) [2018] ZACT 49 (21 November 2018)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that there are no overlaps in the activities of the acquiring firms and the target firm, and thus the proposed transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of competition. The Commission's investigation confirmed this finding. Furthermore, the transaction does not raise any public interest concerns, including employment effects. As a result, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

BOE Private Equity (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Albert Aukema

Heritage Capital Fund I

Applicant Counsel: Albert Aukema

General Profiling (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that the acquisition aligns with their strategic objectives and will allow Heritage Capital to grow its portfolio. The transaction enables retiring shareholders of General Profiling to realize the value of their shares. They submitted that there would be no negative effect on employment and no other public interest concerns.
Respondent
The respondent, General Profiling, supported the transaction as a means for retiring shareholders to realize the value of their shares. The Competition Commission confirmed that there are no overlaps in the parties' activities and that the transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of competition or negative public interest effects.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including employment effects, must be assessed in merger proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that there are no overlaps in the activities of the acquiring firms and the target firm, and thus the proposed transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of competition. The Commission's investigation confirmed this finding. Furthermore, the transaction does not raise any public interest concerns, including employment effects. As a result, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The transaction allows for the realization of value by retiring shareholders, which is a legitimate commercial rationale.
  • The acquisition supports the strategic objectives of the acquiring firms and promotes portfolio growth for Heritage Capital.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

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

[2018] ZACT 49

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM182Sep18

In the matter between:

BOE Private Equity (Pty) Ltd

Heritage Capital Fund I

Acquiring Firms

and

General Profiling (Pty) Ltd

Target Firm

Panel

Enver Daniels (Presiding Member)

Mondo Mazwai (Tribunal Member)

Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

Order issued on

24 October 2018

Reasons issued on 21 November 2018

REASONS

FOR DECISION

Approval

[1] On 24 October 2018, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the large merger involving the acquiring

firms, BoE Private Equity (Pty) Ltd ("BoE") and Heritage Capital Fund I ("Heritage Capital") and the target firm General Profiling (Pty) Ltd ("General Profiling").

[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to the transaction and their activities

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firms are BoE and Heritage Capital. BoE is a wholly­ owned subsidiary of Nedbank Ltd and is in turn controlled by Old Mutual pie. Heritage Capital is controlled by Heritage Capital GP.

[4] BoE is an investment holding company in respect of a variety of businesses ranging from asset management to short-term insurance. Heritage Capital is a 100 percent black female owned investment group which has a single investment in Aria Technologies Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Primary target firm

[5] The primary target firm is General Profiling (Pty) Ltd, a South African incorporated company which is controlled by Mr. Gavin Poplak.

[6] General Profiling is involved in the steel industry and provides stainless steel and aluminum services ranging from flame cutting to rolling.

Proposed transaction and rationale

[7] In terms of the proposed transaction BoE and Heritage Capital would acquire 30 percent of the issued share capital in General Profiling

and will exercise joint control post-transaction.

[8] BoE has submitted that its rationale for the transaction is that the acquisition is in line with its strategic objectives. Heritage

Capital submitted that the proposed transaction would allow it to grow its portfolio. General Profiling submitted that the proposed

transaction would allow retiring shareholders to realize the value of their shares.

Relevant market and impact on competition

[9] The Commission identified no overlaps in the activities of the parties as the acquiring firms do not provide any services provided by General Profiling. Accordingly, the Commission submitted that the proposed transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of competition.

[10] We concur with the Commission's finding that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition as there is no overlaps.

Public interest

[11] The merging parties submitted, which was confirmed by the Commission, that the proposed transaction will not have any negative effect on employment.[1]

[12] The proposed transaction further raises no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

[13] In light of the above, we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

Mr Enver Daniels

Ms Mondo Mazwai and Prof Fiona Tregenna concurring

21 November 2018

Date

Tribunal Case Manager Ms Aneesa Ravat

For the merging parties Mr Albert Aukema of CDH

For the Commission

Ms Rethabile Ncheche

[1] Record pages 78.

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.