Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd (120/LM/Nov08) [2009] ZACT 1; [2009] 1 CPLR 149 (CT) (12 January 2009)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the merger would not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market for household textiles. The post-merger market share of the merged entity would be 18%, with an HHI increase of only 90, which is below the threshold for concern. The merged entity would continue to face competition from several credible market players. Vertical integration concerns were dismissed as Capstone's market share is small and Kolnicks is a minor retailer, making input and customer foreclosure unlikely. No public interest issues were identified. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited

Applicant Counsel: Deneys Reitz Attorneys

WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Deneys Reitz Attorneys

Amounts and remedies

  • Pre Merger HHI: ZAR 1,684
  • Post Merger HHI: ZAR 1,774
  • Change in HHI: ZAR 90
  • Merged Entity Market Share (%): ZAR 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Merger Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the transaction is necessary to save jobs in the threatened textile industry and will enable the target group to remain viable and profitable, avoiding liquidation. The merger will allow the target group to continue competing in the local market for manufacturing and retail of household textiles. The applicant submitted that the merged entity's market share would remain moderate and that sufficient competition would persist post-merger.
Respondent
The respondent, represented by the Commission, submitted that there is a horizontal overlap in the manufacturing of household textiles and vertical integration due to Kolnicks' retail activities. However, the Commission argued that the change in market concentration is minimal, with the post-merger HHI increase below the threshold of concern. The Commission also contended that neither input nor customer foreclosure is likely, given the small market shares and the presence of alternative suppliers and retailers.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition, considering market shares and concentration indices.

  2. 02

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed, but only intervene if there are material concerns such as employment or sectoral impact.

  3. 03

    Competition Commission Guidelines

    The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is used to assess market concentration and the competitive impact of mergers.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the merger would not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market for household textiles. The post-merger market share of the merged entity would be 18%, with an HHI increase of only 90, which is below the threshold for concern. The merged entity would continue to face competition from several credible market players. Vertical integration concerns were dismissed as Capstone's market share is small and Kolnicks is a minor retailer, making input and customer foreclosure unlikely. No public interest issues were identified. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the IDC's involvement in the textile sector is aimed at supporting threatened industries and preserving employment, which aligns with the public interest objectives of the Competition Act.
  • The Tribunal observed that the presence of multiple competitors and alternative suppliers in both manufacturing and retail markets mitigates any risk of anti-competitive effects from the merger.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and WM Eachus and Company (Pty) 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

[2009] ZACT 1

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 120/LM/Nov08

In the matter between:

Industrial Development Corporation of

South Africa Limited Acquiring Firm

And

WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd Target Firms

Panel : D Lewis (Presiding Member), N Manoim (Tribunal Member),

and Y Carrim (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 10 December 2008

Order Issued : 10 December 2008

Reasons Issued: 12 January 2009

Reasons for Decision

Approval

On 10 December 2008, the Tribunal unconditionally approved the merger between the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd. The reasons for approving the transaction follow.

The parties

The primary acquiring firm is the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited (“IDC”).1 IDC is wholly owned by the Government of South Africa and controls several firms2 like Foskor (Pty) Ltd (“Foskor”), Kindoc Investments Limited (“Kindoc”), Impofin (Pty) Ltd (“Impofin”) and Prila 2000 (Pty) Ltd (“Prila”). IDC also controls Capstone 528 (Pty) Ltd (Capstone”), by virtue of a 10% shareholding and a number of minority protections in the shareholders’ agreement.

The primary target firm is WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd (“WM Eachus”). WM Eachus is controlled equally by Raymond Gerald Eachus (“RG Eachus”), John William Eachus (“JW Eachus”), and Lindsay Montague Eachus (“LM Eachus”). The primary target firm controls the Sheraton Group3 of companies consisting of Sheraton Textiles (Pty) Ltd (“Sheraton”), Spartan Rand Warehouses (Pty) Ltd (“Spartan”) Debonair Group (Pty) Ltd (“Debonair”), the Four Posters CC (“Four Posters”) and Kolnicks CC (“Kolnicks”).

Description of the transaction

Prior to the implementation of the proposed transaction, there will be an internal restructuring in the target group in terms of which WM Eachus will become the holding company of the Sheraton Group of companies. Three stages will be followed. Firstly, Kolnicks and Four Posters will be converted from being Close Corporations to Private Companies. Secondly, all the ordinary shares in Sheraton, Spartan, Debonair, Kolnicks and Four Posters will be transferred to WM Eachus, making WM Eachus a holding company of each of the companies. Thirdly, IDC will acquire control over WM Eachus together with its subsidiaries through the acquisition of 80% of the issued shares of WM Eachus. 20% will be transferred to “Newco”, a company to be formed in order to hold the management’s stake in WM Eachus.4

Rationale for the transaction

From IDC’s perspective, the proposed transaction will save existing jobs in a threatened (textile) industry. IDC hopes to support the target group so that it can continue to compete in the local market for manufacturing and retail of household textiles.

The parties submitted that the proposed transaction will enable the target group to remain a viable and profitable business to avoid being wound up.

The parties’ activities

Primary acquiring firm

IDC is tasked with identifying and supporting business opportunities not addressed by the market and providing risk capital in partnership with the private sector. It provides financial support, skills development and industry knowledge to add value to entrepreneurs and businesses.

IDC has interests in various companies in different sectors of the economy, including, but not limited to chemicals, tourism,

agriculture, financial services, and textiles and clothing. IDC, through Capstone, manufactures household textiles including duvets, sheets, curtains, pillows, duvet inners and pillow protectors.

The target firm

The target firm and its subsidiaries are involved in the manufacturing and retail of household textiles including duvets, sheets, curtains, pillows, duvet inners and pillow protectors.

The relevant market

The Commission and the parties submitted that there is a horizontal overlap in the activities of the merging parties in the market for the manufacturing of household textiles and that the transaction results in vertical integration as Kolnicks is active in the retail of household textiles while Capstone is active in the manufacturing of textiles.

The Commission and the parties submitted that the product market can be divided into two relevant markets. First, there is the upstream market for the manufacturing of household textiles which includes duvets, sheets, curtains, pillows, duvet inners and pillow protectors. This market, they submitted, is national as the parties distribute their products nationally. Secondly, the firms are active in the downstream market for the retail of household textiles. The Commission and the merging parties refrained from making a definitive finding on geographic market for the retail of household textiles as the parties’ market shares are small whether the market share is national or regional.

Competition analysis

Horizontal analysis

Table 1: National market shares in the market for manufacturing of household textiles.

COMPETITOR

MARKET SHARE (%) WM Eachus 15 Maytex Industries 15-20 Classic Quilters CC 15-20 Desiree Quilted Products Less than 15 Character Linens Less than 10 Romatex Home Textiles Less than 15 Cotton Traders CC Less than 10 Capstone 3 Pre merger HHI 1684 Post merger HHI 1774 Change in HHI 90

Source: merging parties

The above table shows that the post merger market share will be 18% with an increase of 3%. The transaction is not likely to lead to a substantial prevention or lessening of competition as the change in HHI is below 100 and the merged entity continues to face competition from market players like Matex, Classique, Character Linens, Romatex Home Textiles and Cotton Traders.

Vertical analysis

This transaction is unlikely to raise input foreclosure concerns as Capstone is not a major supplier of household textiles in South Africa and is estimated to be having 3% of that market. In addition, there are other credible suppliers of household textiles such as Maytex, Classique, Character Linens, Romatex Home Textiles and Cotton Traders which are alternatives to Capstone.

The transaction is unlikely to result in customer foreclosure as currently, Kolnicks sources approximately 75% of its household

textiles requirements in-house and as a result, it is unlikely that an upstream rival will be foreclosed from a potential customer. In addition, Kolnicks is a small retail chain with less than 1% of the retail market both regionally and nationally and this suggests that there are a lot of retailers to whom upstream manufacturers can sell their products to and these include Edgars, Sheet Street, Ackermans and Game Stores.

Public Interest

There are no public interest issues.

Conclusion

The merger is approved unconditionally.

____ 12 January 2009

N Manoim DATE

Tribunal Member

D Lewis and Y Carrim concurring

Tribunal Researcher : R Kariga

For the merging parties: Deneys Reitz Attorneys

For the Commission : E Ramohlola (Mergers and Acquisitions)

1 The IDC was established in terms of the Industrial Development Corporation Act 22 of 1940.

2 See form CC4(2) filed by the IDC for a complete list of the firms controlled by IDC.

3 The Sheraton Group of companies is a family owned business established in 1922 and its structure consists of six separate entities (four private companies and two close corporations).

4 See record page 38.

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 89 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Industrial Development Corporation Act 22 of 1940

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.