Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Housing Impact Fund South Africa v Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited (LM148Oct15) [2015] ZACT 71 (7 December 2015)

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 transaction would result in HIFSA acquiring joint control over SASP, but that there is no meaningful horizontal overlap in the student accommodation market, as HIFSA does not own any student accommodation. The only overlap identified was in the Grade C office property segment, but HIFSA's property is mothballed and not operational, and would only be redeveloped if a tenant is secured. The Tribunal was satisfied that office accommodation accounts for less than 10% of SASP's sales and that no tenant existed for HIFSA's property at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal concurred with the Commission's assessment that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse impact on employment or other public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

The merger is approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction between Housing Impact Fund South Africa and Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Housing Impact Fund South Africa

Applicant Counsel: Susan Meyer and Nazeera Mia

Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Percentage of Ordinary Issued Share Capital Acquired by HIFSA: 50
  • Percentage of Voting Rights Acquired by HIFSA: 50
  • Percentage of Ordinary Issued Share Capital Held by HIFSA Pre Transaction: 15
  • Office Accommodation Sales as Percentage of Sasp's Total Sales: 10

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the transaction is essentially a debt restructuring arrangement and that HIFSA's acquisition of joint control over SASP would not result in any substantial change to competition dynamics. They submitted that there is no horizontal overlap in the student accommodation market and that the overlap in office property is immaterial, as HIFSA's Grade C office property is mothballed and not operational. They further confirmed that the transaction would not adversely affect employment or raise other public interest concerns.
Respondent
The Competition Commission submitted that there is no horizontal overlap in student accommodation, as the acquiring group does not own any such properties. While both parties own office properties, the overlap is negligible because HIFSA's office property is not operational and would only be redeveloped if a tenant is secured, which was not the case at the time of the hearing. The Commission concluded that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and does not raise public interest concerns.

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 any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including employment effects, must be assessed in merger proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would result in HIFSA acquiring joint control over SASP, but that there is no meaningful horizontal overlap in the student accommodation market, as HIFSA does not own any student accommodation. The only overlap identified was in the Grade C office property segment, but HIFSA's property is mothballed and not operational, and would only be redeveloped if a tenant is secured. The Tribunal was satisfied that office accommodation accounts for less than 10% of SASP's sales and that no tenant existed for HIFSA's property at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal concurred with the Commission's assessment that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse impact on employment or other public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted its interest in further analysis of the Grade C office space, but was comforted by the limited relevance of this segment to the overall transaction.
  • The Tribunal emphasized that public interest considerations, such as employment, were not negatively affected by the merger.

Court disposition

The merger is approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed transaction between Housing Impact Fund South Africa and Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited 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

[2015] ZACT 71

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM1480ct15

In the matter between:

Housing Impact Fund South Africa

Primary Acquiring Firm

and

Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited

Primary Target Firm

Panel

: Yasmin Carrim (Presiding Member)

: lmraan Valodia (Tribunal Member)

: Fiona Tregenna {Tribunal Member)

Heard on :

2 December 2015

Order Issued on

: 2 December 2015

Reasons Issued on :

7 December 2015

Reasons for Decision

Approval

[1] On 2 December 2015, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the merger between Housing Impact Fund South Africa ("HIFSA") and Stay at Southpoint Properties Proprietary Limited ("SASP").

[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to transaction

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm HIFSA is a trust registered in terms of the laws of South Africa. Participants in the Trust include; Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (South Africa) Limited, Development Bank of Southern Africa Limited, Government Employees Pension Fund represented by the Public Investment Corporation Limited and Eskom Pension and Provident Fund. The fund manager of HIFSA is Old Mutual Investments Proprietary Limited which is tasked with, amongst others, the day to day management of HIFSA. In South Africa HIFSA is ultimately controlled by Old Mutual Group Holdings (South Africa) Proprietary Limited ("OMSA").

[4] HIFSA is a "Development Impact Fund" involved in the finance of development projects for the construction of homes in urban and underdeveloped areas in South Africa. One of its subsidiaries, Rand Lease Securitization Proprietary Limited is also

involved in property development for low to middle income earners. OMSA is an investment holding company in respect of a variety of businesses including asset management, life insurance, banking, investment products and services and short­ term insurance.

Primary target firm

[5] The primary target firm, SASP is a private company which is controlled by South Point Management Services Proprietary Limited

("South Point Management Services"). Prior to the proposed transaction HIFSA owned a non-controlling interest in SASP through its 15% shareholding of ordinary issued share capital.

[6] SASP is a property ownership business whose primary focus is student accommodation. Additionally, SASP owns a single office building which it lets out to commercial tenants.

[7] The proposed transaction involves a share restructuring of the target firm which would result in

HIFSA acquiring 50% of the voting rights and 35% of the ordinary issued share capital of SASP. [1] As a result of the proposed transaction

HIFSA and South Point Management Services will exercise joint control over SASP.

[8] The merging parties submitted that the proposed transaction was essentially a debt restructuring arrangement.

Impact on competition

[9] The Competition Commission ("Commission") in its investigation found that no horizontal overlap exists in respect to the provision of student accommodation as the Acquiring Group does not own any student accommodation. The Commission found a horizontal overlap with respect to the provision of Grace C office property as the merging parties both own office properties. In their assessment the Commission found that the Acquiring Groups Grade C office property is currently mothballed and not operational in the market. Considering this evidence the Commission was of the view that it was unnecessary to investigate further as they submitted that the grade of the office property may change once it is redeveloped. The Commission concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.

[10] Although the Tribunal was interested to see further analysis of the Grade C office space by way of a comparison of its hypothetical

operation against the Target Firms existing office property, the Tribunal is comforted by the fact that the primary business of the target firm is student accommodation with office accommodation accounting for less than 10% of its sales. Additionally the Acquiring Firm's Grade C office property would not be redeveloped or restored unless a tenant was available and at the time of the hearing no such tenant existed. Based on the facts presented to us the Tribunal is also of the view that no overlap is present in terms of the provision of student accommodation. We therefore concur with the Commission's competition assessment that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.

[11] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will not result in an adverse impact on employment and raises no other public interest concerns.[2]

Conclusion

on[12] 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.

______

Ms Yasmin Carrim

07 December 2015

DATE

Prof lmraan Valodia and Prof Fiona Tregenna concurring

Tribunal Researcher: Aneesa Ravat

For the merging parties: Susan Meyer and Nazeera Mia of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc

For the Commission: Thato Mkhize, Seema Nunkoo and Xolela Nokele

[1] HIFSA will post-transaction own 50% of the ordinary issued share capital of SASP.

[2] Inter alia merger record page 11.

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.