Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd v William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd (LM188Mar22) [2022] ZACT 98 (12 May 2022)

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 CFAO Motors and William Simpson Cars would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The Commission identified only limited horizontal overlap in the sale of new and used vehicles and after-sale services, with market shares and accretion well below concerning levels. The merged entity would continue to face competition from numerous alternative dealerships. No public interest concerns were identified: all employees would be retained under Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, and unions raised no objections. The transaction would not dilute historically disadvantaged person shareholding, as CFAO Motors already maintains a 25.1% HDP shareholding through Kapela Holdings. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The large merger between CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd and William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.
  • All employees of William Simpson Cars are to be taken over by CFAO Motors in terms of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.

02

Material facts

Parties

CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Gideon Bothma

William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
CFAO Motors argued that the acquisition of William Simpson Cars would not result in any negative competition effects, as the parties operate in distinct geographic and brand segments. The applicant submitted that all employees of William Simpson Cars would be taken over in terms of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, with no retrenchments anticipated. CFAO Motors also highlighted its 25.1% historically disadvantaged person shareholding through Kapela Holdings, ensuring no dilution of HDP ownership.
Respondent
William Simpson Cars did not oppose the merger and did not raise any competition or public interest concerns. The relevant unions, MISA and NUMSA, representing employees, were consulted and did not object to the transaction. The Commission found no vertical overlap and only limited horizontal overlap, with market shares and accretion below concerning thresholds.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 12A, Competition Act 89 of 1998

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

  2. 02

    Section 197, Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

    Employees affected by a transfer of business as a going concern must be taken over by the new employer on terms not less favourable than those prior to the transfer.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between CFAO Motors and William Simpson Cars would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The Commission identified only limited horizontal overlap in the sale of new and used vehicles and after-sale services, with market shares and accretion well below concerning levels. The merged entity would continue to face competition from numerous alternative dealerships. No public interest concerns were identified: all employees would be retained under Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, and unions raised no objections. The transaction would not dilute historically disadvantaged person shareholding, as CFAO Motors already maintains a 25.1% HDP shareholding through Kapela Holdings. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the merger would not result in intra-brand competition concerns, as the Acquiring Group was not active in retailing Nissan vehicles in the Western Cape.
  • The Commission's market share assessment was based on reliable data from Lightstone Auto and NAAMSA for the relevant period.
  • The Tribunal concurred with the Commission that the transaction would not negatively impact employment or the spread of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The large merger between CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd and William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.
  • All employees of William Simpson Cars are to be taken over by CFAO Motors in terms of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.

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

[2022] ZACT 98

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF

SOUTH AFRICA

Case no: LM188Mar22

In the large merger between:

CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Primary Acquiring Firm

and

William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd

Primary Target Firm

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On 12 May 2022, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved the large merger between CFAO Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“CFAO Motors”) and William Simpson Cars (Pty) Ltd (“William Simpson Cars”).

[2] The proposed transaction involves CFAO Motor’s acquisition of the entire issued share capital of William Simpson Cars. Post-transaction, CFAO Motors will have sole control over William Simpson Cars.

[3] The primary acquiring firm, CFAO Motors, is 74.9% controlled by CFAO Holdings South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“CFAO Holdings”).[1] The balance, a 25.1% non-controlling shareholding, is held by Kapela Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Kapela Holdings”).

CFAO Motors does not control any firm, however, CFAO Holdings controls several firms in South Africa.

[4] The Acquiring Group[2] is active in the distribution of pharmaceutical products and in the retail of motor vehicles. Relevant to the proposed transaction are the activities of the Acquiring Group in the retail motor industry which include the sale of new and pre-used vehicles including

passenger vehicles (“PVs") and light commercial vehicles (“LCVs”), sale of parts and accessories, and aftermarket

services through their franchised dealerships in South Africa.[3] The Acquiring Group comprises of over 100 franchised dealerships, which hold a range of Original Equipment Maker (“OEM”) brands. These brands include Audi, BMW, Ford, Hino, Honda, Kia, Lexus, Mercedes Benz, Mini, Nissan, Renault, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota and Volkswagen across South Africa.

[5] The primary target firm, William Simpson Cars, is 100% controlled by Mr. William Simpson. William Simpson Cars does not control any firm.

[6] William Simpson Cars is active in the retail motor industry, it operates a Nissan dealership located in Tokai, Cape Town and does not conduct any business activities in any other location. The dealership sells new and pre-used LCVs and PVs. It also offers customers access to financial services related to the purchase of vehicles. In addition, the dealership sells parts and accessories, and provides aftermarket services.

Competition assessment

[7] In its assessment of the proposed transaction, the Competition Commission (the “Commission”) found no vertical overlap between the activities of the merging parties but identified a horizontal overlap in that both are active in the sale of new vehicles, the sale of used vehicles, and provision of after sale services and products which include workshop services, repairs, and spare parts.

[8] No further assessment of the effects of the proposed transaction in the market of used or pre-owned vehicles and provision of after sale services and products was conducted as the Commission found that these markets do not raise concerns.

[9] The Commission assessed the effects of the proposed transaction in the following markets:

9.1. The market for the sale of new PVs within a 100km radius of William Simpson Cars Tokai dealership;

9.2. The market for the sale of new LCVs within a 100km radius of William Simpson Cars Tokai dealership;

9.3. The sale of new PVs within a 50km radius of William Simpson Cars Tokai dealership; and

9.4. The sale new LCVs within a 50km radius of the William Simpson Cars Tokai dealership.[4]

[10] n each of the abovementioned markets, the Commission found that the merged entity will have market shares of less than [….] with a market accretion of less than respectively.[5]

[11] Furthermore, the Commission found that the merged entity will continue to be constrained post-transaction by several alternative dealerships in each of the relevant markets.

Public interest

Employment

[12] The merging parties submitted that the employees of William Simpson Cars will be taken over in terms of Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 and that the proposed transaction will not result in any retrenchments.

[13] The Commission engaged with the Motor Industry Staff Association (“MISA”) and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (“NUMSA”) who represent the employees of William Simpson Cars and the Acquiring Group, and they did not raise any concerns in relation to the proposed transaction.[6]

[14] We agree with the Commission’s findings that the proposed transaction is unlikely to have a negative impact on employment.

Spread of Ownership

[15] The Commission assessed the effect of the merger on greater spread of ownership and the merger parties submitted that CFAO Motors has an historically disadvantaged person (“HDP”) shareholding of 25.1% through Kapela Holdings[7] while William Simpson Cars does not have any HDP shareholding pre-transaction.

[16] The Commission is of the view that the proposed transaction does not raise substantial concerns relating to the promotion of a greater spread of ownership by HDPs as the proposed transaction will not result in dilution of HDP shareholdings and we concur with this.

Conclusion

[17] For the above reasons, we find that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market or raise public interest concerns.

Date: 12 May 2022

Ms Yasmin Carrim

Professor Imraan Valodia and Mr Enver Daniels concurring

Tribunal Case Managers: Makati Seekane and Leila Raffee

For the Merging Parties: Gideon

Bothma

For the Commission: Tumiso

Loate and Themba Mahlangu

[1]

CFAO Holdings is, in turn, wholly controlled by Toyota Tsusho Corporation (“TTC”), a public firm listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the Nagoya Stock Exchange. TTC’s shares are widely held, and it is not controlled by any single shareholder.

Shareholders with more than 5% of TTC’s issued share capital are: Toyota Motor Corporation (as to 21.69%); Toyota Industries

Corporation (“TICO”, as to 11.18%); and The Master Trust Bank of Japan, Ltd (as to 10.45%).

[2]

CFAO Motors, CFAO Holdings, all the firms controlled by CFAO Holdings shall be referred to as the “Acquiring Group”.

[3] The product offering also includes new and used medium commercial vehicles and heavy vehicles.

[4] The Acquiring Group is not active in the retailing of Nissan branded vehicles in the Western Cape, an as such there is no intra-brand

competition taking place between the merger parties.

[5] The Commission’s market share assessment was based off data provided by Lightstone Auto, published by NAAMSA, for sale volumes

of new PVs and LCVs from 1 January 2021 to 30 December 2021 within Cape Town and surrounding areas.

[6] See email from the MISA’s Labour Relations Officer dated 8 April 2022 (Merger Record, p199) and email from the Commission to NUMSA dated 7 April 2022 (Merger Record, p204).

[7] Which is a 95.44% HDP owned firm as stated in the Competition Commission's Large Merger Report LM188Mar33 at p8 para 4.

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.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

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.