South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd v Bell Equipment Limited Ltd (LM183Jan21) [2021] ZACT 8 (26 February 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that IA Bell does not control any other firm active in the relevant market, and thus there is no horizontal overlap. Bell Equipment's market share remains at 18%, and the transaction does not result in market share accretion or change the market structure. The merged entity will continue to be constrained by several competitors. No public interest concerns were identified, and the concerns raised by NUMSA related only to future employees and were not pursued further. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction was approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd and Bell Equipment Limited Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: A Mdee of ENS Africa

Bell Equipment Limited Ltd

Respondent Counsel: M Griffiths of Norton Rose Fulbright

Amounts and remedies

  • Bell Equipment Market Share: 18
  • IA Bell Pre Merger Shareholding (%): 38.73
  • IA Bell Post Merger Shareholding (%): 70.1

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Application / Decision on Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
IA Bell argued that the transaction would not result in any horizontal overlap, as IA Bell does not control any other firm active in the manufacture and distribution of earth moving equipment in South Africa. The merging parties submitted that Bell Equipment's market share is approximately 18%, and the transaction would not result in market share accretion or alter the market structure. They further contended that the merged entity would continue to face competition from several significant competitors.
Respondent
No formal opposition was raised. The trade union NUMSA raised concerns with the Commission regarding ongoing discussions with Bell Equipment, but these related to future, not current, employees. NUMSA declined to make further submissions to the Tribunal. The Commission confirmed that there were no current public interest concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    A merger may be approved unconditionally if it does not substantially prevent or lessen competition, and does not raise public interest concerns.

  2. 02

    Merger Record, page 74

    The assessment of market share and competitive constraints is central to merger analysis.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that IA Bell does not control any other firm active in the relevant market, and thus there is no horizontal overlap. Bell Equipment's market share remains at 18%, and the transaction does not result in market share accretion or change the market structure. The merged entity will continue to be constrained by several competitors. No public interest concerns were identified, and the concerns raised by NUMSA related only to future employees and were not pursued further. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that NUMSA's concerns were not related to current employees and did not warrant further investigation in the context of this merger.
  • The Tribunal acknowledged the presence of significant competitors in the market, ensuring continued competitive constraints post-merger.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction was approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd and Bell Equipment Limited Ltd 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

[2021] ZACT 8

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case no: LM183Jan21

In the matter between:

IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd Primary Acquiring Firm

AndBell Equipment Limited Ltd Primary Target Firm

Panel : Y Carrim (Presiding Member)

: I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

: F Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 24 February 2021

Order Issued on : 24 February 2021

Reasons Issued on : 26 February 2021

REASONS FOR

DECISION

Unconditional approval

[1] On 24 February 2021, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) unconditionally approved the proposed transaction in terms of which IA Bell and Company (Pty) Ltd (“IA Bell”) intends to increase its shareholding in Bell Equipment Limited (“Bell Equipment”) through the acquisition of the shares held by John Deere Construction & Forestry Company (“John Deere”).

[2] The reasons for the approval of the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to the transaction

[3] The acquiring firm is IA Bell, an investment holding company not controlled by any individual or firm. Other than Bell Equipment, IA Bell holds shares in Loinette Capital Limited, which provides asset-based finance solutions to its customers.

[4] The target firm is Bell Equipment, a public company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.[1] Bell Equipment is active in the manufacture, distribution and sale of earth moving equipment, implements and accessories, as well as the manufacture, distribution and sale of spares, parts and components, and the after-sales support of its earth moving equipment.

Proposed transaction

[5] IA Bell intends to increase its shareholding in Bell Equipment from 38.73% to 70.1% through the acquisition of the shares held by John Deere. Post-merger, IA Bell will own and control Bell Equipment.

Competition Analysis

[6] IA Bell is not active in and does not control any other firm, besides Bell Equipment, that is active in the manufacturing and distribution of earth moving equipment in South Africa. Therefore, there is no horizontal overlap in the activities of the merging parties. Notwithstanding, the merging parties submitted that Bell Equipment’s market share in the relevant market is approximately 18%. The proposed transaction does not result in a market share accretion or change the structure of the market.

[7] The merged entity will be constrained by various competitors, such as Barloworld Limited, Kemach Equipment (Pty) Ltd, Babcock International and Komatsu Limited post-merger. Accordingly, the transaction does not give rise to any competition concerns.

Public interest

[8] The proposed transaction does not give rise to any public interest concerns.[2]

[9] However, the trade union, NUMSA,[3] had raised concerns with the Commission about its current discussions with Bell Equipment. The Commission and the merging parties confirmed that these discussions related to future and not current employees of Bell Equipment. NUMSA was asked to make further submissions to the Tribunal but declined to do so.

Conclusion

[10] In light of the above, the proposed transaction was approved unconditionally.

Signed by:Yasmin Tayob Carrim

Signed at:2021-02-26 11:42:07 +02:00

Reason:I approve this document

26 February 2021

Ms Yasmin Carrim Date

Prof. Imraan Valodia and Prof. Fiona Tregenna concurring.

Tribunal Case Manager : Duduetsang Mogapi

For the Merging Parties : A Mdee of ENS Africa

: M Griffiths of Norton Rose Fulbright

For the Commission : R Ncheche, R Maphwanya and A Mfuphi

[1] The five largest shareholders of Bell Equipment as at 27 November 2020 are (i) IA Bell; (ii) John Deere; (iii) Allan Gray Asset Management; (iv) Ninety-One (Investec Asset Management); and (v) Sanlam Investment Managers.

[2] Merger Record, page 74.

[3] National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa.

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.