Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Johnnic Book Retail Ltd t/a Exclusive Books and Van Schaik Bookstores A division of Via Afrika Ltd (43 /LM/Apr07) [2007] ZACT 82; [2007] 2 CPLR 311 (CT) (5 November 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the relevant product markets were the retail sale of general books and the retail sale of academic books. The overlap between the merging parties was minimal, with Exclusive Books and Van Schaik deriving only a small proportion of their turnover from each other's primary market. The geographic overlap was assessed at both 2km and 5km radii, and no significant competition concerns were identified. The Commission's investigation revealed no horizontal or vertical foreclosure risks, and no public interest issues arose. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the merger would not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition and approved the transaction unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Johnnic Book Retail Ltd t/a Exclusive Books and Van Schaik Bookstores a division of Via Afrika Ltd is approved unconditionally.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval.

02

Material facts

Parties

Johnnic Book Retail Ltd t/a Exclusive Books

Applicant Counsel: Anthony Norton

Van Schaik Bookstores a division of Via Afrika Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Clearance / Reasons for Unconditional Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The acquiring firm argued that the transaction would allow it to diversify its product mix by offering both general and academic books. It submitted that the overlap in activities between the parties is minimal, with Exclusive Books deriving less than 1% of its turnover from academic books and Van Schaik only 5% from general books. The applicant maintained that the merger would not negatively affect competition or raise public interest concerns.
Respondent
The target firm, through its parent Naspers, contended that the sale of academic books by Van Schaik does not align with its core business and that divestiture is appropriate. The respondent agreed with the applicant's assessment of limited overlap and supported the view that the transaction would not result in anti-competitive effects or public interest issues.

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 Commission Guidelines

    The relevant product market must be defined with reference to demand and supply side substitution and the extent of overlap between the parties.

  3. 03

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed in terms of the impact on employment, small businesses, and the ability of national industries to compete internationally.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the relevant product markets were the retail sale of general books and the retail sale of academic books. The overlap between the merging parties was minimal, with Exclusive Books and Van Schaik deriving only a small proportion of their turnover from each other's primary market. The geographic overlap was assessed at both 2km and 5km radii, and no significant competition concerns were identified. The Commission's investigation revealed no horizontal or vertical foreclosure risks, and no public interest issues arose. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the merger would not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition and approved the transaction unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the sale of academic books by Van Schaik does not form part of Naspers' core business, justifying the divestiture.
  • The geographic analysis at both 2km and 5km radii confirmed that the overlap between the parties' stores is limited and does not raise competition concerns.
  • No public interest issues, such as employment or impact on small businesses, were identified in this transaction.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Johnnic Book Retail Ltd t/a Exclusive Books and Van Schaik Bookstores a division of Via Afrika Ltd is approved unconditionally.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval.

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

[2007] ZACT 82

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 43 /LM/Apr07

In the matter between

Johnnic Book Retail Ltd

T/A Exclusive Books Acquiring Firm

And

Van Schaik Bookstores

A division of Via Afrika Ltd Target Firm

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

Heard on : 08 August 2007

Decided on : 08 August 2007

Reasons Issued : 05 November 2007

REASONS

Approval

[1] On 08 August 2007 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate unconditionally approving the merger between Johnnic Book Retail Ltd T/A Exclusive Books and Van Schaik Bookstores a Division of Via Afrika Ltd. The reasons appear below.

Parties

[2] The acquiring firm is Johnnic Book Retail Ltd T/A Exclusive Books (“Exclusive Books”) a publicly listed company. Exclusive Books is entirely controlled by Johnnic Communications Ltd (“Johncom”). 1

[3] The target firm is Van Schaik Bookstores (“Van Schaik”) a Division of Via Afrika Ltd (“Via Afrika”). Via Afrika is a company controlled by Media24 Ltd (“Media24”), which in turn is controlled by Naspers Ltd (“Naspers”). 2

Transaction

[4] The transaction involves the acquisition by Exclusive Books of all the issued shares in Van Schaik.

Rationale for the Transaction

[5] From the acquiring firm’s perspective the proposed transaction will enable it to change its product mix, providing general and academic books.

[6] From the target firm’s perspective Naspers advised that the sale of academic books by Van Schaik division does not form part of its core business, and it has decided to divest of its interest in Van Schaik.

Activities of the Parties

[7] Exclusive Books is involved in the trading of a wide range of general books including fictional and non-fictional novels, biographies, health related books, business related books, children’s books, travel books and religious books and magazines. Their stores are located in shopping malls. Johncom is a supplier of media, including national newspapers, magazines and digital services. Van Schaik is a trader of academic books and a very limited seller of general books. Their stores are located close to, or on, University campuses and other academic institutions.

Relevant Market

[8] The merging parties submitted that the relevant product markets in which the parties are active are the markets for the retail sale of general books and retail sale of academic books. In its analysis of the relevant product market the Commission considered three issues namely: demand side substitution, supply side substitution and the fact that to some extent the parties’ activities overlap. The Commission agreed with the product market definition advanced by the merging parties and it therefore concluded that the product market is the market for retail sale of general books and retail sale of academic books. With regard to the geographic market the Commission considered the impact of the merger at a local level based on the overlapping stores identified on the basis of both 2km and 5km radius.3 We agree with the commission’s conclusions.

Competition Analysis

[9] The Commission’s examination of the proposed transaction showed that the proposed transaction will result in both horizontal and vertical effects. According to the Commission there is an overlap in the activities of the merging parties in the sense that exclusive books occasionally stocks academic books and Van Schaik stocks a limited number of general books. Furthermore the Commission’s investigation confirmed that the overlap does not seem to be significant, given the fact that less than 1% of Exclusive Books’ turnover is from academic books and 5% of Van Schaik’ turnover is derived from general books sales. The Commission’s investigation of vertical integration did not uncover competition issues of concern given the amount of general books sold by Van Schaik and the fact that its store locations are predominantly on or near higher educational institution campuses. We agree with the Commission that no foreclosure concerns arise as a result of the proposed transaction. There are no public interest issues.

Conclusion

[10] Based on the above the transaction will not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the identified markets and is accordingly approved unconditionally.

_______ 05 November 2007

D. Lewis Date

Tribunal Member

N Manoim and M Mokuena concurring

Tribunal Researcher : J Ngobeni

For the merging parties : Anthony Norton (Webber Wentzel Bowens)

For the Commission : Geffrey Mudzanani (Mergers and Acquisitions)

1 Johncom is a company that is listed on the JSE and does not have any controlling shareholders.

2 Naspers is a public company listed on the JSE and therefore is not directly or indirectly controlled by any shareholder.

3 On the 2km radius Exclusive Books has stores in the following areas: Brooklyn, Claremont, Stellenbosch, East London and Nelspruit. On the 5km radius Exclusive Books has stores in Bloemfontein and Roodepoort. Van Schaik has the following overlapping stores within the 2km radius: Hatfield, Rondebosch, Stellenbosch, East London and Nelspruit. On the 5km radius a further two stores overlapping are identified namely: Bloemfontein and Roodepoort.

3

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.