Hail Creek Coal Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Hail Creek Joint Venture and Others (LM076Jun18) [2018] ZACT 35; [2020] 2 CPLR 756 (CT) (24 July 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZACT 35
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- A W Wessels, Enver Daniels, Fiona Tregenna
- Case number
- LM076Jun18
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- A W Wessels, Enver Daniels, Fiona Tregenna
- Case number
- LM076Jun18
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction does not result in any substantial prevention or lessening of competition in either the national market for thermal coal or the international market for metallurgical coal. The target firms do not operate in the South African thermal coal market, and the merged entity's share of the international metallurgical coal market remains below 10%. Furthermore, there are no negative effects on employment or other public interest concerns in South Africa. The Tribunal therefore approved the transaction unconditionally.
Court disposition
The merger is approved unconditionally.
Orders
- The proposed transaction is approved without conditions.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hail Creek Coal Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Paul ClelandHail Creek Joint Venture
RespondentHail Creek Marketing (Pty) Ltd
RespondentHail Creek Coal (Pty) Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Merged Entity's International Market Share for Metallurgical Coal: 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Control / Final Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed acquisition would substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant coal markets.
- 02
Whether the transaction raises any public interest concerns, including employment effects in South Africa.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the acquisition would not result in any substantial lessening of competition in South African or international coal markets. The target firms do not produce or supply thermal coal in South Africa, and the only overlap is in the international market for metallurgical coal, where the merged entity's market share would remain below 10%. The transaction would not negatively affect employment or raise other public interest concerns.
- Respondent
- The Competition Commission concurred, finding no geographic overlap in the South African thermal coal market and confirming that all metallurgical coal used in South Africa is imported. The Commission concluded that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition and that there were no adverse public interest effects, including on employment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, 89 of 1998
A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
- 02
Competition Act, 89 of 1998
Public interest factors, including employment, must be considered in merger assessments.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction does not result in any substantial prevention or lessening of competition in either the national market for thermal coal or the international market for metallurgical coal. The target firms do not operate in the South African thermal coal market, and the merged entity's share of the international metallurgical coal market remains below 10%. Furthermore, there are no negative effects on employment or other public interest concerns in South Africa. The Tribunal therefore approved the transaction unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that since 2013, all metallurgical coal used in South Africa has been imported, which limits the relevance of domestic production overlaps.
- The merging parties confirmed that the transaction would not negatively affect employment in South Africa.
Court disposition
The merger is approved unconditionally.
- The proposed transaction 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.
Competition Tribunal
Judgment
COMPETITION
TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: LM076Jun18
In the matter between:
Hail Creek Coal Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Primary Acquiring Firm
And
Hail Creek Joint Venture
Hail Creek Marketing (Pty) Ltd
Primary Target Firms
Hail Creek Coal (Pty) Ltd
Panel
: Mr A W Wessels (Presiding Member)
: Mr Enver Daniels (Tribunal Member)
: Prof Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 4 July 2018
Order Issued on : 4 July 2018
Reasons Issued on : 24 July 2018
REASONS
FOR DECISION
Approval
[1] On 4 July 2018, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the acquisition by Hail Creek Coal Holdings
(Pty) Ltd ("HCC Holdings") of Hail Creek Joint Venture ("HC Joint Venture"); Hail Creek Marketing (Pty) Ltd ("HC Marketing"); and Hail Creek Coal (Pty) Ltd ("HC Coal").
[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.
Parties to the proposed transaction and their activities
Primary acquiring firm
[3] The primary acquiring firm is HCC Holdings, a special purpose vehicle established to facilitate the current transaction and act as a holding company for the target firms listed below. HCC Holdings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glencore Coal (Pty) Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glencore Operations Australia (Pty) Ltd ("Glencore Operations"). Glencore Operations is an indirect subsidiary of Glencore pie ("Glencore"). Glencore is a public company listed on the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges.
[4] Glencore operates globally as a supplier of commodities and raw materials to industrial customers. Of relevance to the competition assessment of the proposed transaction are Glencore's activities in relation to the supply of coal, which fall under its Energy Products business segment.
Primary target firms
[5] The primary target firms are (i) HC Joint Venture; (ii) HC Marketing; and (iii) HC Coal. Pre-merger these target firms are ultimately
controlled by Rio Tinto Limited, a multinational mining and metals corporation.
[6] The target firms' activities relate to coal mining arising out of the Hail Creek Mine, an open cast mine situated in Queensland, Australia. HC Coal performs the management functions of HC Joint Venture, which owns the Hail Creek Mine, while HC Marketing is responsible for the marketing and sale of the thermal and metallurgical (or coking) coal produced at this mine.
Proposed transaction
[7] In terms of the proposed transaction, HCC Holdings intends to acquire 82% of the issued share capital of HC Joint Venture, 82% of the issued share capital of HC Marketing and 100% of the issued share capital of HC Coal. HCC Holdings may however acquire an interest of up to 100% in HC Joint Venture and up to 100% of the shares in HC Marketing if the other joint venture participants exercise their "tag-along rights" in terms of the Asset Sale Agreement.[1]
[8] Upon implementation of the proposed transaction, HCC Holdings will exercise control over the target firms.
Relevant markets and impact on competition
[9] The Competition Commission ("Commission") considered the activities of the merging parties and found that the proposed
transaction gives rise to horizontal overlaps in (i) the national market for the production and supply of thermal coal; and (ii) the international market for the production and supply of metallurgical or coking coal.
[10] The Tribunal questioned the Commission and the merging parties regarding the geographic scope of the market for the production and supply of metallurgical coal. The merging parties confirmed that since about 2013 all metallurgical coal used in South Africa has been imported into South Africa.[2]
[11] With regards to the national market for the production and supply of thermal coal, Glencore currently produces and supplies thermal coal in South Africa, but the target firms neither produce nor supply thermal coal in South Africa. The Commission therefore concluded that the proposed transaction does not raise any geographic overlap in relation to the production and supply of thermal coal in South Africa.
[12] With regards to the production and supply of metallurgical coal, the Commission found that Glencore and the target firms do not own or operate any mine in South Africa that produces metallurgical coal. The target firms produce metallurgical coal from the mine located in Australia and supply same to various customers located throughout the world, including one customer in South Africa. Glencore also produces metallurgical coal from its mines located in other countries and supplies same to customers located worldwide including South Africa. Furthermore, the merged entity will have a market share of below 10% in the international market for the production and supply of metallurgical (or coking) coal.
[13] Given the above, we concur with the Commission that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the identified relevant markets.
Public interest
[14] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will have no negative effect on employment in South Africa.[3]
[15] The proposed transaction further raises no other public interest concerns.
Conclusion
[16] In light of the above, we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any
relevant market. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed
transaction unconditionally.
Mr AW Wessels
Mr Enver Daniels and Prof Fiona Tregenna
24 July 2018
Tribunal Case Manager: Jonathan Thomson
For the merging parties: Paul Cleland of Werksmans
For the Commission: Rethabile Ncheche and Themba Mahlangu
[1] See Merger Record, inter alia page 28.
[2] Transcript, pages 8 and 9.
[3] Merger Record, pages 12, 89 and 90.
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.