Ellerine Bros (Pty) Ltd and Another v FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd (019430) [2014] ZACT 69 (31 October 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZACT 69
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Yasmin Carrim, Anton Roskam, Andiswa Ndoni
- Case number
- 019430
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Yasmin Carrim, Anton Roskam, Andiswa Ndoni
- Case number
- 019430
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant markets. The merging parties' combined post-merger market share in Grade A office properties in Sandton and Environs would remain low, and significant competition from other property groups would persist. The transaction would not alter the market structure for speciality entertainment centres, as there was no overlap in retail properties outside Newpark. No public interest concerns were identified. The Tribunal therefore approved the transaction unconditionally.
Court disposition
The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.
Orders
- The acquisition by Ellerine Bros (Pty) Ltd and Ellwain Investments (Pty) Ltd of FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd’s 25% interest in Newpark Towers (Pty) Ltd is approved unconditionally.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ellerine Bros (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Vani ChettyEllwain Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Vani ChettyFHP Managers (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Seema NunkooAmounts and remedies
- Post Merger Market Share (grade a Office Properties, Sandton and Environs): 3.5
- Pre Merger Shareholding of Each Acquiring Firm in Newpark (%): 23.86
- Post Merger Shareholding of Each Acquiring Firm in Newpark (%): 36.36
03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Approval / Reasons for Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed acquisition will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant markets.
- 02
Whether any public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The acquiring firms argued that the transaction would enhance their respective property portfolios and that their increased shareholding in Newpark would not alter the competitive dynamics, as they already held significant interests in the company. They submitted that the transaction would not result in any material change to market structure or competition.
- Respondent
- The Commission submitted that the transaction would result in a horizontal overlap in Grade A office properties and retail properties, but the merged entity's market share would remain low and competition from other large property groups would persist. The Commission found no overlap in retail properties classified as speciality entertainment centres and concluded that the transaction would not affect market structure or raise public interest concerns.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 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.
- 02
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
Public interest considerations must be assessed in merger proceedings, including the effect on employment and the ability of small businesses to compete.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant markets. The merging parties' combined post-merger market share in Grade A office properties in Sandton and Environs would remain low, and significant competition from other property groups would persist. The transaction would not alter the market structure for speciality entertainment centres, as there was no overlap in retail properties outside Newpark. No public interest concerns were identified. The Tribunal therefore approved the transaction unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted the considerable amount of vacant Grade A office space in the Sandton node, which further mitigates any potential anti-competitive effects.
- The Tribunal accepted that the acquiring firms were merely increasing their shareholding in Newpark, rather than introducing a new competitive dynamic.
Court disposition
The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.
- The acquisition by Ellerine Bros (Pty) Ltd and Ellwain Investments (Pty) Ltd of FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd’s 25% interest in Newpark Towers (Pty) Ltd 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: 019430
In the matter between:
ELLERINE BROS. (PTY) LTD
and
ELLWAIN INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD..........................................................Primary Acquiring Firms
And
FHP MANAGERS (PTY) LTD
in respect of its 25% interest in
NEWPARK TOWERS (PTY) LTD...........................................................................Primary Target Firm
Panel: Yasmin Carrim (Presiding Member)
: Anton Roskam (Tribunal Member)
: Andiswa Ndoni (Tribunal Member)
Heard on: 15 October 2014
Order Issued on: 15 October 2014
Reasons Issued on: 31 Octobér 2014
Reasons for Decision
Approval
[1] On 15 October 2014, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved the acquisition by Ellerine Bros. (Pty) Ltd and Ellwain Investments (Pty) Ltd of FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd.’s 25 % Interest in Newpark Towers (Pty) Ltd.
[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.
Parties to transaction
Primary acquiring firm
[3] The primary acquiring firms are Ellerine Bros. (Pty) Ltd (“Ellerine Bros”) and Ellwain Investments (Pty) Ltd (“Ellwain”) (collectively referred to as the “Acquiring Firms”). The Acquiring firms are investment companies with property portfolios comprising of Retail and Office space in Gauteng. Ellerine Bros is jointly controlled by the Eric Ellerine Trust and the Sidney Ellerine Trust. Ellwain is jointly controlled by the following firms:
• Oxiana Limited (“Oxiana”);
• Argon Holdings Limited (“Argon Holdings”);
• Eric Ellerine Family Trust;
• Sidney Ellerine Family Trust; and
• Drawood Trust.
Oxiana, Argon Holdings and Drawood Trust do not own any firms in South Africa. Ellerine Bros and Ellwain jointly control Newpark Towers (Pty) Ltd (“Newpark”) together with FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd, Mr B D Van Wyk and Renlia Developments (Pty) Ltd.
Primary target firm
[4] The primary target firm is FHP Managers, in respect of its 25% interest in Newpark. Newpark is a property investment company that currently owns two office properties, classified as Grade A and B, situated in the Sandton and Johannesburg CBDs, as well as a specialist entertainment centre located in the Sandton CBD. FHP Managers is 100% controlled by the Standard Bank Group Limited. FHP Managers and Newpark do not control any other firms.
Proposed Transaction and Rationale
[5] The Acquiring Firms each own 23.86% of the shares and claims in Newpark. In terms of the Sale of Shares Agreement, the Acquiring Firms shall each acquire 12.5% of the shares and claims in Newpark from FHP Managers. Following the implementation of the proposed transaction, the Acquiring Firms will each hold 36.36% in Newpark.
[6] The Acquiring Firms submit, as a rationale for the transaction, that they seek to enhance their respective property portfolios.
Relevant Market and Impact on Competition
[7] An assessment of the merging parties’ activities found that the proposed transaction results in a horizontal overlap in respect of Grade A office properties and retail properties. With respect to Grade A office property, the merging parties will have a combined post-merger market share of between 1.5% and 3.5% in the Sandton and Environs node with an accretion of between 0.5% and 2%. The merged entity will still face competition from other large property groups such as Growthpoint, Annuity, Investec, Redefine as well as many other players in the market. Furthermore, there is a considerable amount of vacant Grade A office space in this node. The Tribunal further accepts that nothing will change in this market as the Acquiring Firms already have a pre-merger shareholding in Newpark, and through this transaction, are merely seeking to increase their respective shareholding in this regard.
[8] With respect to retail property, we find that there is no overlap between the retail properties owned by the merging parties outside of Newpark, as none of the Acquiring Firm’s retail properties are classified as speciality entertainment centres. Therefore the proposed transaction is unlikely to change the market structure of the market for the provision of speciality entertainment centres.
Conclusion
[11] In light of the above we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant markets. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transactions. Accordingly we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.
31 October 2014
DATE
Ms Yasmin Carrim
Andiswa Ndoni and Anton Roskam concurring
Tribunal Researcher: Derrick Bowles
For the merging parties: Vani Chetty - Baker & McKenzie
For the Commission: Seema Nunkoo assisted by Xolela Nokele
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.