Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Investec Property Group Limited and Nestl� (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (77/LM/Dec03) [2004] ZACT 5 (2 February 2004)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the transaction, a sale and lease-back arrangement involving industrial warehouse property, would not result in a substantial lessening of competition. Investec Property's market share in the relevant market remains below 1% even after the addition of Nestl�'s property. The market is highly competitive, with tenants able to choose among various premises based on attractive terms, and there are no significant barriers to entry due to the availability of vacant land and the requirement of capital investment. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The merger between Investec Property Group Limited and Nestl� (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Investec Property Group Limited

Applicant Counsel: Pieter Steyn (Werksmans Attorneys)

Nestl� (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Investec Property Market Share Post Merger (%): 1

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Merger Clearance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the market for rentable industrial warehouse space is highly competitive, with tenants exercising significant countervailing power. They submitted that Investec Property's market share is less than 1%, and will remain so after the transaction. There are no significant barriers to entry, as capital investment is the only requirement and vacant land is readily available for development.
Respondent
The Competition Commission concurred with the parties, stating that Nestl�'s property was previously used exclusively for its own purposes and did not compete in the market for letting industrial warehouse space. Post-merger, the property will enter the broader market, but Investec's market share will remain negligible. The Commission found no substantial lessening of competition or public interest concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 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, No. 89 of 1998

    Market share and barriers to entry are key factors in assessing the competitive impact of a merger.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the transaction, a sale and lease-back arrangement involving industrial warehouse property, would not result in a substantial lessening of competition. Investec Property's market share in the relevant market remains below 1% even after the addition of Nestl�'s property. The market is highly competitive, with tenants able to choose among various premises based on attractive terms, and there are no significant barriers to entry due to the availability of vacant land and the requirement of capital investment. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • Tenants in the industrial warehouse property market exercise significant countervailing power, influencing competitive dynamics.
  • The availability of vacant land for development reduces barriers to entry in the industrial warehousing sector.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

  • The merger between Investec Property Group Limited and Nestl� (South Africa) (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

[2004] ZACT 5

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case no: 77/LM/DEC03

In The Large Merger Between:

Investec Property Group Limited

And

Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Reasons for Decision

Approval

On 28 January 2004 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate approving the transaction between Investec Property Group Limited and Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The reasons for this decision follow.

The Parties

The primary acquiring firm is Investec Property Group Limited (“Investec Property”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Investec Property Group Holdings Limited which is ultimately owned by Investec Limited, a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

The primary target firm is Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (“Nestlé”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Swiss confectionary company, Nestlé S.A Company, which is listed on the Swiss stock exchange.

The transaction

The transaction, which is a sale and lease-back arrangement, involves Nestlé selling industrial warehouse space on which its regional head office is located in the Longmeadows Business Estate in Modderfontein, Johannesburg. In terms of the merger agreement Investec Property will then lease the property back to Nestlé in its capacity as landlord for a period of ten years.

The Parties’ Activities

Nestlé is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of a broad array of food products ranging from confectionary (chocolates) to pet foods to instant foods to infant foods. However it is Nestlé’s immovable property, which is the subject of this transaction. This property is used as a warehouse and distribution facility exclusively by Nestlé.

Investec Property is a property holding company, involved in property management, property trading and development and property fund management. Investec property owns, manages and develops properties. Investec Property currently owns two industrial warehouse properties.

The Investec Group provides a wide range of financial products and services, viz. Investment banking, Treasury and Specialized finance, Private banking and Client portfolio management and Asset management.

Impact on competition

In the Commission’s view, although the properties of Investec Property and Nestlé are both industrial warehouse facilities, they do not compete in the market for letting industrial warehouse space. This is because Nestlé’s property was owned and used for its own purposes.

However, as a result of the transaction, Nestlé’s property will now become part of this broader rentable industrial warehouse property market. Investec’s market share in this market is currently less than 1%, and with the addition of Nestlé’s property will remain less than 1%.

The Parties submit that this market is very competitive, and tenants will generally tend to migrate to those premises in any particular area in respect of which they are offered the most attractive terms. Tenants therefore exercise significant countervailing power.

There are no significant barriers to entry other than the need for capital investment. The Parties further submit that there isn’t any shortage of vacant land available for development as industrial warehousing space in the market.

Conclusion

Having regard to the above, we conclude that the merger will not lead to a substantial lessening of competition and there are no significant public interest concerns. Accordingly, we agree with the Commission’s recommendation that the transaction be unconditionally approved.

2 February 2004

N Manoim Date

Concurring: P Maponya and M Holden

For the merging parties: Pieter Steyn (Werksmans Attorneys)

For the Commission: Maarten Van Hoven (Mergers and Acquisitions)

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.