Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Fountainhead Property Trust v FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd (61/LM/Sep10) [2010] ZACT 75 (3 November 2010)

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 parties are involved in the property market, Fountainhead does not currently own any A-grade office property in the Constantia Kloof Basin where the target property is situated. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties in respect of rentable A-grade office space in the relevant geographical node. The transaction is unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition. Furthermore, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Fountainhead Property Trust and FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd in respect of the Constantia Valley Sale Property is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Fountainhead Property Trust

Applicant Counsel: Vani Chetty

FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Undivided Share in Section 4 of Constantia Valley: 0.8

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Application / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Fountainhead Property Trust argued that the acquisition aligns with its strategy to acquire A-grade properties with strong and certain cash flow in established nodes. It does not currently own any A-grade office property in the Constantia Kloof Basin, and the transaction would not result in a horizontal overlap in the relevant market.
Respondent
FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd submitted that, as a trader and developer of property, its rationale for the sale is to realise a profit from the Constantia Valley Sale Property, which was developed into A-grade office space in 2009. The transaction is a standard commercial sale with no anti-competitive intent.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

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

  2. 02

    Tribunal precedent

    The absence of horizontal overlap in the relevant geographic market indicates no substantial lessening of competition.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that although both parties are involved in the property market, Fountainhead does not currently own any A-grade office property in the Constantia Kloof Basin where the target property is situated. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties in respect of rentable A-grade office space in the relevant geographical node. The transaction is unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition. Furthermore, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the acquisition is consistent with Fountainhead's strategy to expand its portfolio of A-grade properties in established nodes.
  • No concerns were raised by third parties or the public regarding the transaction.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Fountainhead Property Trust and FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd in respect of the Constantia Valley Sale Property 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

Order

[2010] ZACT 75

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Case No: 61/LM/Sep10

In the matter between:

Fountainhead Property Trust …....................................................................Acquiring Firm

And

FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd in respect of the

Constantia Valley Sale Property …....................................................................Target Firm

Panel : Norman Manoim (Presiding Member) Yasmin Carrim (Tribunal Member) Andreas Wessels (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 06 October 2010

Order issued on : 06 October 2010

Reasons issued on : 03 November 2010

Reasons for Decision

APPROVAL

On 06 October 2010, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) unconditionally approved the transaction involving Fountainhead Property Trust and FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd in respect of the Constantia Valley Sale Property (see paragraph below). The reasons for the approval follow below.

PARTIES

TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND THEIR ACTIVITIES

The primary acquiring firm is Fountainhead Property Trust (“Fountainhead”)1, a property unit trust managed by Fountainhead Property Trust Management Ltd (“FPTML”). Fountainhead is a closed-end

fund and listed on the JSE. FPTML is the asset manager of Fountainhead and is jointly owned by Standard Bank Properties (Pty)

Ltd and Liberty Group Ltd.

Fountainhead is a diversified real estate investment fund, invested in retail, industrial and office property mainly in the metropolitan areas of South Africa.

The primary target firm is FHP Managers (Pty) Ltd (“FHP Managers”) in respect of the Constantia Valley Sale Property. FHP Managers is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Bank Group Ltd. The Constantia Valley Sale Property comprises FHP Managers’s undivided 4/5 (four fifths) share in section 4 of the proposed sectional title scheme known as Constantia Valley, situated in Constantia Kloof, Roodepoort, Gauteng. Section 4 of Constantia Valley forms part of an office park known as Constantia Valley Office Park and is categorised as A-grade office space. This development was completed in 2009.

FHP Managers is a developer and trader in property assets. It owns certain office, retail and industrial properties in South Africa and performs its own asset management services. The relevant part of the property portfolio of FHP Managers for purposes of this transaction is however only the above-mentioned Constantia Valley Sale Property.

DESCRIPTION

OF THE TRANSACTION

In terms of the sale agreement between the parties, Fountainhead is acquiring the Constantia Valley Sale Property from FHP Managers.

RATIONALE

FOR THE TRANSACTION

Fountainhead submitted that this acquisition is in line with its strategy of acquiring A-grade properties, with strong and certain cash flow, in established nodes. FHP Managers submitted that as a trader and developer of property, it is looking to make a profit from the sale of the Constantia Valley Sale Property which was developed into A-grade office space in 2009.

COMPETITION

ANALYSIS

Although both the merging parties are involved in the property market, Fountainhead does not currently own any A-grade office property in the Constantia Kloof Basin where the target property is situated. There is therefore no horizontal overlap between the activities of the merging parties in respect of rentable A-grade office space in the relevant geographical node, i.e. the Constantia Kloof Basin.

CONCLUSION

The proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition since there is no geographic overlap between the property rental activities of the merging parties. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

Date: 03 November 2010

Andreas Wessels

Norman Manoim and Yasmin Carrim concurring

Tribunal Researcher: Ipeleng Selaledi

For the merging parties: Vani Chetty Competition Law

For the Commission: Nazeera Ramroop

1Originally known as the Standard Bank Property Fund and subsequently Allan Gray Property Trust, Fountainhead was renamed “Fountainhead

Property Trust” on 01 June 2007.

1

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.