Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd and Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd (32/LM/Mar07) [2007] ZACT 44 (29 June 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that although both SBSA and Edu-Loan provide finance for higher education, they target different market segments. SBSA serves higher earning students, while Edu-Loan caters to those who do not qualify for traditional bank funding. There is no significant overlap in their activities, and the merger will not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the educational finance market. Furthermore, no public interest concerns were identified. The transaction is intended to promote black economic empowerment in the sector. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd and Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: J Meijer

Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Circle Edu Post Merger Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 50.5
  • SBSA Shareholding in Circle Edu (%): 49
  • Circle Capital Shareholding in Circle Edu (%): 51
  • SBSA Pre Merger Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 44.98
  • Kopano Investments Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 21.78
  • Sasfin MDM Private Equity Fund Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 9.24
  • Nulane Investments 131 Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 5.38
  • Sukaren Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 4.99
  • Edu Loan Finance Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 2.82
  • JJ Kitshoff Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 2.34
  • MS Waserfall Trust Shareholding in Edu Loan (%): 2.15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that there is no meaningful overlap in their activities, as SBSA provides student loans to higher earning market segments, while Edu-Loan targets students who do not qualify for funding from SBSA or other banking institutions. The transaction is intended to establish a black economic empowerment alliance in the educational finance market, with Circle Capital playing a strategic role in advancing Edu-Loan's position.
Respondent
No formal representation from the Commission was present at the hearing. No opposition or adverse arguments were submitted against the merger.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

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

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed in merger proceedings, including the effect on employment and empowerment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that although both SBSA and Edu-Loan provide finance for higher education, they target different market segments. SBSA serves higher earning students, while Edu-Loan caters to those who do not qualify for traditional bank funding. There is no significant overlap in their activities, and the merger will not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the educational finance market. Furthermore, no public interest concerns were identified. The transaction is intended to promote black economic empowerment in the sector. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted the strategic intent of Circle Capital to advance Edu-Loan's position as a funder of affordable educational finance in South Africa and the rest of Africa.
  • The Tribunal observed that the absence of opposition from the Commission and other stakeholders indicated no material concerns regarding the transaction.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd and Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

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

[2007] ZACT 44

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 32/LM/Mar07

In the matter between:

Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd Acquiring Firm

And

Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd Target Firm

Panel : D Lewis (Presiding Member), Y Carrim (Tribunal

Member) and M Mokuena (Tribunal Member),

Heard on : 6 June 2007

Decided on : 6 June 2007

Reasons Issued: 29 June 2007

Reasons for Decision

Approval

On 6 June 2007, the Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger between Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd and Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd. The reasons for approving the transaction follow.

The parties

The primary acquiring firm is Circle Edu Investments (Pty) Ltd (‘Circle Edu’), a newly incorporated company formed for the purposes of this transaction. In turn, Capital Ventures (Pty) Ltd (‘Circle Capital’), a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of South Africa, owns 51% interest in Circle Edu and the remaining 49% is owned by Standard Bank of South Africa (‘SBSA’), a public company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of South Africa.

SBSA is a subsidiary of the Standard Bank Group Limited (‘SBG’) a public company listed on the JSE Securities Exchange. SBG has several subsidiaries worldwide and in South Africa. Circle Edu does not control any firm.

The primary target firm is Edu-Loan (Pty) Ltd (‘Edu Loan’), a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of South Africa. The shareholders of Edu-Loan who hold at least 2% of its shareholding are as follows:1

[5.1] Standard Bank South Africa (SBSA) 44.98%;

[5.2] Kopano Investments (Pty) Ltd 21.78%;

[5.3] Sasfin-MDM Private Equity Fund 9.24%;

[5.4] Nulane Investments 131 (Pty) Ltd 5.38%;

[5.5] Sukaren (Pty) Ltd 4.99%;

[5.6] Edu-Loan Finance (Pty) Ltd 2.82%;

[5.7] JJ Kitshoff 2.34%;

[5.8] MS Waserfall Trust 2.15%;

Edu-Loan controls Winger Technologies (Pty) Ltd (‘Winger’) and Edu-Loan Namibia (Pty) Ltd (‘Edu Loan Namibia’), a Namibian Corporation.

Description of the transaction

In terms of the transaction, Circle Edu intends to acquire SBSA’s entire shareholding in Edu-Loan and thereafter subscribe for additional 10% share in Edu-Loan. This will result in Circle Edu having 50.5% share in Edu-Loan.2

On completion of the transaction Circle Edu will own 50.5% share in Edu-Loan. SBSA will have 49% share in Circle Edu. The balance of 51% share in Circle Edu will be owned by Circle Capital. The parties submitted that SBSA will control Circle Edu due to the funding arrangements they have with Circle Edu.

Rationale for the transaction

SBSA and Edu-Loan want to establish a relationship with an empowerment partner in the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of establishing a black economic empowerment alliance in the educational finance market.

Circle Capital intends to play a strategic role in advancing Edu-Loan’s position as a funder of affordable educational finance in South Africa as well as the rest of Africa.

The parties’ activities

Primary acquiring firm

Circle Edu

Circle Edu is a vehicle procured to specifically hold shares in Edu-Loan and to procure financing for the proposed transaction.

Circle Capital

Circle Capital is an investment holding company that acquires and holds investments in several companies. It has investments in the companies that are involved in the leasing offices, health and micro surveillance solutions.

SBSA

The SBSA offers a complete range of banking, financial, property, insurance products and services. SBSA’s activity relevant for the purposes of this transaction is the provision of student loans. SBSA pays the funds directly to students who are then responsible for paying the educational institution.

The primary target firm

Edu-Loan

Edu-Loan provides educational finance through discounting of student fees with educational institutions, which comprise the financing of education and auxillary education services through persal salary deductions, salary deductions and debit orders. It is a registered micro-lender.

The parties submit that Edu-Loan was formed to cater for individual students that did not qualify for finance under the National Financial Student Aid Scheme (NFSAS) or any of the banking institutions.

Winger is an in-house IT development company that services Edu-Loan only. Edu-Loan Namibia is involved in the financing of educational and agricultural loans in Namibia

Competition analysis

On the face of it, it would appear as if there is an overlap in the activities of the merging parties in that they both provide finance for higher education. However, the SBSA gives loans to higher earning market segments while Edu-Loan will normally give educational finance to students ho do not qualify for funding from SBSA and other banking institutions. There is therefore no overlap in the activities of the merging parties as they target different markets.

Public Interest

There are no public interest issues.

Conclusion

The merger is approved unconditionally.

____ 29 June 2007

D Lewis DATE

Presiding Member

Y Carrim and M Mokuena concur in the judgment of D Lewis

Tribunal Researcher : R Kariga

For the merging parties: J Meijer, Bowman Gilfillan Attorneys.

For the Commission : Not represented at the hearing

1 The other shareholders include RP Van Wyk (with 1.02% shareholding); HD Steyn (with 0.88% shareholding); B Letshweni (with 0.38% shareholding); HP Steyn (with 0.24% shareholding); DW van Vuuren (with 0.21% shareholding); MJ Herbst (with 0.19% shareholding); and SJ Botha (with 0.05% shareholding).

2 See p 2 of the Joint Competitiveness report.

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, No. 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.