Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd (86/LM/Aug00) [2000] ZACT 41 (28 September 2000)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that there is no significant product overlap between Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd, except for a negligible overlap in asset management. The Sable family's interest in Gregory Knitting Mills is minor compared to Frame's market position. The transaction is a sale of shares and does not affect employment or other public interest issues. Accordingly, the merger does not substantially lessen or prevent competition in any relevant market and raises no public interest concerns under section 16 of the Competition Act. The merger was therefore approved without conditions.

Court disposition

Merger approved without conditions.

Orders

  • The merger between Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd is approved without conditions.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is issued.

02

Material facts

Parties

Investec Group Ltd

Applicant

Frame Group Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Merger Clearance Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contended that the merger would not result in any substantial lessening or prevention of competition, as there is no significant product overlap between the parties. The only possible overlap is in asset management, which is negligible. The transaction is a sale of shares and will not affect employment or other public interest issues.
Respondent
The respondent did not oppose the merger and did not present arguments suggesting any anti-competitive effects or public interest concerns. No evidence was submitted to indicate that the merger would negatively impact competition or public interest.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, section 16

    A merger may only be prohibited if it substantially lessens or prevents competition, unless justified on public interest grounds.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, section 16

    The Tribunal must consider the effect of the merger on competition and public interest, including employment and other factors.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that there is no significant product overlap between Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd, except for a negligible overlap in asset management. The Sable family's interest in Gregory Knitting Mills is minor compared to Frame's market position. The transaction is a sale of shares and does not affect employment or other public interest issues. Accordingly, the merger does not substantially lessen or prevent competition in any relevant market and raises no public interest concerns under section 16 of the Competition Act. The merger was therefore approved without conditions.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that Gregory Knitting Mills, owned by the Sable family, is a small player with a turnover of a tenth of Frame, and does not materially affect the competitive assessment.
  • Both Yellowinvest and Frame Holdings are shelf companies and have not traded before, which further reduces any potential competitive concerns.

Court disposition

Merger approved without conditions.

  • The merger between Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd is approved without conditions.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is issued.

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

[2000] ZACT 41

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 86/LM/Aug00

In the large merger between

Investec Group Ltd

and

Frame Group Ltd

REASONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

Approval

The Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate on 6 September 2000 approving the merger between Investec Group Ltd and Frame Group Ltd without conditions. The reasons for approving the merger are set out below.

The merger transaction

The primary acquiring firms are Investec Group Ltd, Newinvest 80 (Pty) Ltd, Yellowfield Investments (Pty) Ltd and Frame Investment Holdings Ltd.

Investec is controlled by Investec Holdings, a public listed company on the JSE. Newinvest is controlled by JGM nominees (Pty) Ltd. Yellowinvest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Nominees (Pty) Ltd and Frame Holdings is controlled by Fynne Holdings Ltd, also a nominee company. Both Yellowinvest and Frame Holdings are shelf companies, which have not traded before.

Yellowfields, Frame Investments and Investec represent three substantial interests in the merged company, that of David Sable as to 37,5%, David Bowles as to 37,5%, Investec as to 10% and management as to the balance of the shares.

The primary target firm is the Frame Group Ltd, a company listed on the JSE. Seargreg Investments (Pty) Ltd, which is 50% owned by Seardel and 50% owned by Frame chairman Roy Sable, has a 46,9% shareholding in Frame. There are approximately thirty companies in the Frame Group, some active and some dormant.

The merger consists of three transactions, namely, a restructure, a sale and a scheme of arrangement.

Frame will be restructured to become a holding company with Consolidated Textiles as its “first level” subsidiary. All the other first level subsidiaries of Frame will become “second level” subsidiaries and will be controlled by Consolidated Textiles.

In terms of the sale agreement, Newinvest will acquire all the shares in Consolidated Textiles. Yellowfields holds 40%, Frame Investment Holdings 50% and Investec 10% of the shares in Newinvest.

In terms of the merger agreement, Investec, on 24 August 2000, proposed a scheme of arrangement between Frame and its shareholders in terms of section 311 of the Companies Act to acquire all the shares in Frame from its shareholders.

Evaluating the merger

The relevant product market

Frame derives its income through investments and its trading subsidiaries derive their income through the manufacture and sale of textiles, as well as the rental of commercial and industrial properties. The Frame Group is involved in the textile industry through Frame Spinning Mills, Frame Woven Fabrics, Frame Knitting Manufacturers, Frame Manchester Manufacturers Frame Fibres, Romatex Ltd and Confram Property Holdings Ltd.

Investec is a specialist bank, which provides banking services, such as investment banking and principal transaction, corporate banking and interest rate activities, private client group and asset management.

Effect on competition

None of the principals in the Investec Consortium have any interest in the clothing industry except the Sable family, which owns Gregory Knitting Mills (Pty) Ltd, a small privately owned company with a turnover of a tenth of that of Frame. Although it is not quite clear what influence Gregory Knitting Mills has had in the past it would appear that it is not a significant player in the market in relation to the size of a company such as Frame.

There is no product overlap between the parties except possible in the area of asset management, which may include property management. However, this overlap is negligible.

Public interest considerations

The transaction is a sale of shares and will not have any affect on employment or any of the other public interest issues referred to in section 16 of the Act.

D.H. Lewis Date

Concurring: N.M. Manoim, P.E. Maponya

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, section 16

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Companies Act, section 311

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.