CDC Group Plc v DiverCity Urban Property Fund (LM182Jan21) [2021] ZACT 9 (1 March 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZACT 9
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- E Daniels, M Mazwai, H Cheadle
- Case number
- LM182Jan21
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- E Daniels, M Mazwai, H Cheadle
- Case number
- LM182Jan21
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that CDC Group is not active in the property sector in South Africa and does not control any firm in that sector. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties. Post-merger, the merged entity will continue to face competition from several established property companies. The transaction does not give rise to any competition or public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the proposed transaction unconditionally.
Court disposition
Unconditional approval of the proposed merger.
Orders
- The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.
02
Material facts
Parties
CDC Group PLC
Applicant Counsel: V ChettyDiverCity Urban Property Fund (Pty) Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Percentage of Shares Acquired: 35
03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Control / Approval
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed acquisition of 35% of DiverCity by CDC Group raises competition concerns in the property sector.
- 02
Whether the transaction gives rise to any public interest concerns.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- CDC Group argued that the transaction would enable the creation of high-quality, affordable, centrally located, and environmentally sustainable rental housing-led projects. CDC Group is not active in the South African property sector and does not control any firm in that sector, so there is no horizontal overlap.
- Respondent
- DiverCity submitted that the transaction would provide it with capital to develop its project pipeline. It did not raise any competition or public interest concerns and confirmed that the merger would not negatively affect competition or the public interest.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act 89 of 1998
A merger may be approved unconditionally if it does not substantially prevent or lessen competition and does not raise public interest concerns.
- 02
Competition Tribunal precedent
Where there is no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties, competition concerns are unlikely to arise.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that CDC Group is not active in the property sector in South Africa and does not control any firm in that sector. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties. Post-merger, the merged entity will continue to face competition from several established property companies. The transaction does not give rise to any competition or public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the proposed transaction unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the transaction would enable DiverCity to access capital for development, which may have positive effects on urban renewal and affordable housing.
- The Tribunal observed that the merger parties provided full disclosure and the Commission did not oppose the transaction.
Court disposition
Unconditional approval of the proposed merger.
- 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.
Competition Tribunal
Judgment
COMPETITION
TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: LM182Jan21
In the matter between:
CDC Group PLC Primary Acquiring Firm
And
DiverCity Urban Property Fund (Pty) Ltd Primary Target Firm
Panel : E Daniels (Presiding Member)
: M Mazwai (Tribunal Member)
: H Cheadle (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 24 February 2021
Order Issued on : 24 February 2021
Reasons Issued on : 01 March 2021
REASONS
FOR DECISION
Unconditional approval
[1] On 24 February 2021, the Competition Tribunal (âTribunalâ) unconditionally approved the proposed transaction in terms of which CDC Group PLC (âCDC Groupâ) intends to acquire 35% of the ordinary shares in DiverCity Urban Property Fund (Pty) Ltd (âDiverCityâ).
[2] The reasons for the approval of the proposed transaction follow.
Parties to the transaction
[3] The acquiring firm is CDC Group, a development finance institution incorporated in the United Kingdom (âUKâ) and wholly owned by the UK Governmentâs Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (âFCDOâ).
[4] CDC Group controls Globeleq Limited, a producer and operator of electricity generation in Africa, and Zambeef Products PLC, a Zambia-based beef producer. In South Africa, CDC Group has investments in funds that have non- controlling minority interests in investee companies that are active in, inter alia, the consumer services, financial services, agriculture, and education sectors.
[5] The target firm is DiverCity, a private company whose shareholders include IThemba Group Investments (Pty) Ltd, Atterbury Property Fund (Pty) Ltd, Integer Properties 1 (Pty) Ltd, Nedbank Limited, and RMH Property HoldCo 5 (Pty) Ltd.
[6] DiverCity is a mixed-use private property holding, investment and development fund focused on investing and renewing dense urban precincts. DiverCityâs property portfolio includes retail property, residential property, and office property.
Proposed transaction
[7] CDC Group intends to acquire 35% of the ordinary shares in DiverCity, such that post-merger, CDC Group will exercise joint control over DiverCity.
Rationale for the transaction
[8] The acquiring firm views the proposed transaction as an opportunity to create good quality, lower cost, centrally located and environmentally sustainable rental housing-led projects.
[9] From the perspective of the target firm, the proposed transaction will enable it to acquire capital to develop its pipeline.
Competition Analysis
[10] CDC Group is not active in the property sector in South Africa and does not control any firm that is active in the property sector in South Africa. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap in the activities of the merger parties.
[11] Post-merger, the merged entity will face competition from various property companies, including Growthpoint Properties Limited, Redefine Properties Limited, and Fortress REIT Limited. Accordingly, the transaction does not give rise to any competition concerns.
Public interest
[12] The proposed transaction does not give rise to any public interest concerns.[1]
Conclusion
[13] In light of the above, the proposed transaction was approved unconditionally.
01 March 2021
Mr Enver Daniels Date
Ms Mondo Mazwai and Mr Halton Cheadle concurring.
Tribunal Case Manager : Duduetsang Mogapi
For the Merging Parties : V Chetty of Vani Chetty Competition Law (Pty) Ltd
For the Commission : R Ncheche, R Maphwanya and A Mfuphi
[1] Merger Record, pages 72-73.
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.