Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited v Investec Asset Management Holding (Pty) Ltd (LM1270ct19) [2020] ZACT 1; [2020] 1 CPLR 358 (CT) (9 January 2020)

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 demerger transaction does not result in any horizontal or vertical overlap between the merging parties, as they do not provide substitutable services or inputs to each other. The transaction will not alter the structure of the relevant market and is therefore unlikely to prevent or lessen competition. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse effects on employment, and no other public interest concerns were raised. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Court disposition

The merger was approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The large merger between Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited, Investec Asset Management UK Group PLC, Investec Asset Management Holdings (Pty) Ltd, and Investec Asset Management Limited is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited

Applicant Counsel: Mark Garden

Investec Asset Management UK Group PLC

Applicant Counsel: Mark Garden

Investec Asset Management Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Tayla Theron

Investec Asset Management Limited

Respondent Counsel: Tayla Theron

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Reasons for Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the transaction is a restructuring and demerger of asset management services from the Investec Group to newly established entities, which will be independently listed on the JSE and LSE. They asserted that there is no horizontal or vertical overlap between the parties, and the transaction will not alter the market structure or negatively impact competition. They further confirmed that there would be no adverse effects on employment and that employees raised no concerns.
Respondent
The Competition Commission agreed with the merging parties, finding that the transaction does not result in any horizontal or vertical overlap, as the parties do not provide substitutable services or inputs to each other. The Commission concluded that the transaction would not change the structure of the relevant market and would not prevent or lessen competition. No public interest concerns, including employment effects, were identified.

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 in the relevant market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    The Tribunal must consider public interest factors, including the effect of the transaction on employment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed demerger transaction does not result in any horizontal or vertical overlap between the merging parties, as they do not provide substitutable services or inputs to each other. The transaction will not alter the structure of the relevant market and is therefore unlikely to prevent or lessen competition. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse effects on employment, and no other public interest concerns were raised. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The merging parties indicated during the hearing that the acquiring firms will now be referred to as Ninety One Ltd (SA) and Ninety One PLC (UK).
  • No concerns were raised by employees regarding the transaction.

Court disposition

The merger was approved unconditionally.

  • The large merger between Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited, Investec Asset Management UK Group PLC, Investec Asset Management Holdings (Pty) Ltd, and Investec Asset Management 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

[2020] ZACT 1

competitiontribunal

SOUTH

AFRICA

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM1270ct19

In the matter between:

Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited and Primary Acquiring Firm

Investec Management Asset Management UK Group PLC

And

Investec Asset Management Holding (Pty) Ltd and Primary Target Firm

Investec Asset Management Limited

Panel: E Daniels (Presiding Member)

: Y Carrim (Tribunal Member)

: A Ndoni (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 27 November 2019

Order issued on: 27 November 2019

Reasons issued on: 09 January 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION

Approval

[1] On 27 November 2019, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") approved the large merger between Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited and Investec Asset Management UK Group Pie and Investec Asset Management Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Investec Asset Management Limited.

[2] The reasons for the unconditional approval follow.

PARTIES TO THE

TRANSACTION

Primary Acquiring Firm

[3] The primary acquiring firms are Investec Asset Management SA Group Limited ("IAM SA ListCo") and Invest Asset Management UK Group Pie ("IAM UK ListCo"). These companies are incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South Africa ("South Africa") and the United Kingdom ("UK"), respectively.[1]

[4] 1AM SA ListCo and 1AM UK ListCo operate as one corporate group through a dual listed company (DLC) arrangement. Collectively, they are referred to as 1AM DLC.IAM DLC does not have prior operations or business activities.

Primary Target Firm

[5] The primary target firms are Investec Asset Management Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("IAM SA") and Investec Asset Management Limited ("IAM UK"). These companies are incorporated in accordance with the company laws of South Africa and UK, respectively.

[6] 1AM is active in the provision of active investment products and services to institutional and advisor clients. 1AM investment

offering includes equities, fixed income, multi asset management and alternatives strategies.

PROPOSED TRANSACTION

[7] The proposed transaction is the demerger of 1AM from the Investec Group. The transaction comprises a restructuring of the asset

management service from the Investec Group to newly established entities that will be independently li5ted on the JSE and LSE.

COMPETITION ANALYSIS

[8] The Commission considered the activities of the merging parties and found that proposed transaction does not result in a horizontal or vertical overlap as the merging parties do not provide services that are substitutable or considered to be inputs to each other. The proposed transaction will not change the structure of the relevant market and as such, the Tribunal is of the view that the proposed transaction is unlikely to prevent or lessen competition.

PUBLIC

INTEREST

[9] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction would not have any adverse effects on employment in South Africa. The employees of 1AM raised no concerns with the transaction. The transaction raises no other public interest concerns.

CONCLUSION

[10] In light of the above, we approved the transaction subject to no conditions.

09 January 2020

Date

Mr Enver Daniels

Ms Yasmin Carrim and Ms Andiswa Ndoni

Tribunal Case Manager : Lumkisa Jordaan

For the merging parties : Mark Garden and Tayla Theron of ENSafrica

For the Commission : Nonhlanhla Msiza and Mogau Aphane

[1] During the course of the hearing, the merging parties indicated that the acquiring firms will now be referred to as Ninety One Ltd (SA) and Ninety One Pie (UK).

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.

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.