South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Daimler Truck Holding AG v Daimler Truck AG (LM049Jul21) [2021] ZACT 49 (19 August 2021)

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 Daimler Truck Holding AG and Daimler Truck AG would not result in any horizontal or vertical overlaps, as the acquiring firm is a newly established entity with no activities. The transaction is essentially an unbundling, with Daimler AG divesting its trucks and buses business to a new entity, resulting in a loss of control but retaining a minority shareholding. The Commission's investigation revealed no negative impact on employment, with commitments to comply with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act and no anticipated retrenchments. The transaction would not affect the spread of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons or workers. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's findings and concluded that the merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or negatively affect the public interest.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The merger between Daimler Truck Holding AG and Daimler Truck AG is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

02

Material facts

Parties

Daimler Truck Holding AG

Applicant Counsel: Burton Phillips and Daryl Dingley

Daimler Truck AG

Respondent Counsel: Burton Phillips and Daryl Dingley

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Clearance Application / Order and Reasons Issued

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties submitted that the transaction is an unbundling of Daimler Trucks AG by Daimler AG into a standalone listed company. The transaction will not result in duplication of roles or negative effects on employment, and the process will comply with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. The effective shareholding in the target firm will not change, and there will be no adverse impact on the spread of ownership.
Respondent
The Competition Commission found no horizontal or vertical overlaps in the activities of the merger parties, as Daimler Truck Holding AG is a newly established entity with no activities. The Commission engaged with employee representatives and unions, who raised concerns about benefits and incentives, but the merging parties committed to protections under section 197 of the Labour Relations Act. The Commission concluded there would be no retrenchments and no negative impact on employment or ownership spread.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 1998, section 16(2)(a)

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

  2. 02

    Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995

    Employee protections during mergers must comply with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between Daimler Truck Holding AG and Daimler Truck AG would not result in any horizontal or vertical overlaps, as the acquiring firm is a newly established entity with no activities. The transaction is essentially an unbundling, with Daimler AG divesting its trucks and buses business to a new entity, resulting in a loss of control but retaining a minority shareholding. The Commission's investigation revealed no negative impact on employment, with commitments to comply with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act and no anticipated retrenchments. The transaction would not affect the spread of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons or workers. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's findings and concluded that the merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or negatively affect the public interest.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted the importance of ongoing engagement between employee representatives and the merging parties to address concerns about benefits and incentives.
  • The Tribunal acknowledged the merging parties' commitment to comply with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act during the transaction process.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

  • The merger between Daimler Truck Holding AG and Daimler Truck AG is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

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

Order

[2021] ZACT 49

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No.: LM049Jul21

In the matter between:

Daimler Truck Holding AG

Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Daimler Truck AG

Primary Target Firm

Panel:

E Daniels (Presiding Member)

I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

T Vilakazi (Tribunal Member)

Heard on:

19 August 2021

Order Issued on: 19 August 2021

Reasons Issued on: 19 August 2021

ORDER

Further to the recommendation of the Competition Commission in terms of section 14A(1)(b) of the Competition Act, 1998 (“the Act”) the Competition Tribunal orders that–

1. the merger between the abovementioned parties be approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and

2. a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued in terms of Competition

Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

Presiding Member

Mr Enver Daniels

19 August 2021

Date

Concurring: Prof Imraan Valodia and Dr Thando Vilakazi

Daimler Truck Holding AG

(Acquiring Firm)

and

Daimler Trucks AG

(Target Firm)

REASONS

FOR DECISION

[1] On 19 August 2021, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved

a large merger between Daimler Truck Holding AG (“DT Holding AG”) and Daimler Trucks AG (“DTAG”).

[2] The acquiring firm, DT Holding AG is a newly established entity incorporated under the laws of Germany for purposes of the proposed transaction. DT Holding AG is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler AG (“DAG”). DAG is a publicly listed stock corporation incorporated in accordance with the laws of Germany and is listed on the Stuttgart and Frankfurt Stock Exchanges. DAG's shares are widely held such that DAG is not controlled by any one firm. Other firms controlled by DAG include Mercedes-Benz AG and Daimler Mobility AG.

[3] The target firm, DTAG, is a related company and is also a wholly owned subsidiary of DAG. Within the Daimler Group, DTAG operates the trucks and buses business which focusses on the manufacturing and sale of trucks and buses in various jurisdictions.[1] In South Africa, DTAG controls Ukuvela Holdings Proprietary Limited[2] and Daimler Trucks and Buses Southern Africa Proprietary Limited.[3]

[4] The proposed transaction essentially entails the unbundling of DTAG

by DAG into a standalone listed company. Through this merger, DAG’s trucks and buses business is being divested to a newly established entity – DT Holding AG – resulting in DAG losing control over DTAG while maintaining a non-controlling minority shareholding. The rationale is [….] The merging parties submit that [….]

[5] Given that DT Holding AG is a newly established entity that does not conduct any activities; the Competition Commission (“Commission”) found no horizontal or vertical overlaps in the activities of the merger parties.

[6] In terms of the public interest assessment, the Commission considered the impact of the merger on employment. DT Holding AG does not have any employees in South Africa. DTAG's South African employees are represented by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and the United Association of South Africa (UASA) and the employee representative. The Commission engaged with the unions and the representative who indicated that the employees raised concerns largely relating to employee benefits and incentives. The employee representatives are utilising different platforms to engage and address the fears of the employees during the consultation process. According to the employee representative, the merging parties have committed that whole process will be done in line with the protections afforded by section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.[4]

[7] The Commission found that – because the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a duplication of roles at the merging parties’ operations and in light of the merging parties’ statement that the proposed transaction will not have a negative effect on employment, in particular, there will be no retrenchments as a result of the proposed transaction – the merger is unlikely to raise employment concerns.

[8] The Commission also considered the impact of the transaction on the spread of ownership. In terms of the transaction steps, [….][5] This means the effective shareholding in the target firm will not change. In this regard, the proposed transaction is unlikely to have an impact on the spread of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and workers.

[9] We agree with the Commission’s findings and conclude that the

proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, nor have a negative impact on the public interest.

19 August 2021

Mr Enver Daniels

Date

Prof Imraan I. Valodia and Dr Thando Vilakazi concurring

Tribunal Case Manager:

Lutendo Maiwashe and Mpumelelo Tshabalala

For the Merging Parties: Burton Phillips and Daryl Dingley

For the Commission:

Reabetswe Molotsi and Ratshidaho Maphwanya

[1] As part of the preparatory steps to facilitate the Proposed Transaction, [….]

[2] Ukuvela Holdings in turn controls Atlantis Foundries Proprietary Limited and Ukuvela Properties Proprietary Limited.

[3] DTFS SA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler Trucks and Buses Southern Africa Proprietary Limited.

[4] Act No 66 of 1995.

[5] [….]

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, 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Labour Relations Act, No 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.