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)
- Citation
- [2009] ZACT 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- D Lewis, N Manoim, Y Carrim
- Case number
- 120/LM/Nov08
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- D Lewis, N Manoim, Y Carrim
- Case number
- 120/LM/Nov08
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 AttorneysWM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Deneys Reitz AttorneysAmounts 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
Posture
Merger Control / Merger Approval
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed merger will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for household textiles.
- 02
Whether the transaction raises any public interest concerns under the Competition Act.
- 03
Whether the merger results in horizontal or vertical competition concerns.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Competition Tribunal
Judgment
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 (âIDCâ).1 IDC is wholly owned by the Government of South Africa and controls several firms2 like Foskor (Pty) Ltd (âFoskorâ), Kindoc Investments Limited (âKindocâ), Impofin (Pty) Ltd (âImpofinâ) and Prila 2000 (Pty) Ltd (âPrilaâ). IDC also controls Capstone 528 (Pty) Ltd (Capstoneâ), by virtue of a 10% shareholding and a number of minority protections in the shareholdersâ agreement.
The primary target firm is WM Eachus and Company (Pty) Ltd (âWM Eachusâ). WM Eachus is controlled equally by Raymond Gerald Eachus (âRG Eachusâ), John William Eachus (âJW Eachusâ), and Lindsay Montague Eachus (âLM Eachusâ). The primary target firm controls the Sheraton Group3 of companies consisting of Sheraton Textiles (Pty) Ltd (âSheratonâ), Spartan Rand Warehouses (Pty) Ltd (âSpartanâ) Debonair Group (Pty) Ltd (âDebonairâ), the Four Posters CC (âFour Postersâ) and Kolnicks CC (âKolnicksâ).
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 âNewcoâ, a company to be formed in order to hold the managementâs stake in WM Eachus.4
Rationale for the transaction
From IDCâs 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 partiesâ 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 partiesâ 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.
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.