Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

CDC Group Plc v DiverCity Urban Property Fund (LM182Jan21) [2021] ZACT 9 (1 March 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Chetty

DiverCity Urban Property Fund (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Percentage of Shares Acquired: 35

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Judgment

[2021] ZACT 9

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 (“Tribunal”) unconditionally approved the proposed transaction in terms of which CDC Group PLC (“CDC Group”) intends to acquire 35% of the ordinary shares in DiverCity Urban Property Fund (Pty) Ltd (“DiverCity”).

[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 (“UK”) and wholly owned by the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (“FCDO”).

[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. DiverCity’s 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.

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.