Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited v Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited (LM118Sep16) [2016] ZACT 107 (23 November 2016)

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 merger does not result in any overlap between the Acquiring Group, which manages investment funds, and Acorp, which wholesales promotional products. The clarification regarding Yakjin Trading Corp confirmed that its activities do not overlap with those of Acorp. The presence of other clothing suppliers in the market would further constrain the merged entity. The Commission's assessment was accepted, and there was no evidence of anti-competitive effects or adverse public interest impacts, including on employment. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally as it is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or raise public interest concerns.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction between Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited and Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited

Applicant Counsel: Richardt van Rensburg of EnsAfrica

Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited

Respondent Counsel: Shawn van der Meulen of Webberwentzel

Amounts and remedies

  • Percentage of Share Capital Acquired: 70.1

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Approval Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Acquiring Group argued that the transaction is an attractive investment opportunity and that Main Street, newly incorporated for this purpose, does not conduct any business activities. The transaction would allow Acorp to dilute a portion of its equity and facilitate the exit of one shareholder. The merging parties submitted that there is no overlap between the Acquiring Group and Acorp, as the former manages investment funds and the latter is involved in wholesale promotional products. They clarified that Yakjin Trading Corp manufactures branded clothing, while Acorp supplies unbranded products for corporate branding, and that other suppliers such as Edcon and Foschini Group would constrain the merged firm post-merger.
Respondent
The Competition Commission submitted that the proposed transaction does not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any market, as there is no overlap between the target and Acquiring Group. The Commission found no evidence of anti-competitive effects and confirmed that the transaction would not adversely impact employment or raise other 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 any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including employment effects, must be assessed in merger proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger does not result in any overlap between the Acquiring Group, which manages investment funds, and Acorp, which wholesales promotional products. The clarification regarding Yakjin Trading Corp confirmed that its activities do not overlap with those of Acorp. The presence of other clothing suppliers in the market would further constrain the merged entity. The Commission's assessment was accepted, and there was no evidence of anti-competitive effects or adverse public interest impacts, including on employment. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally as it is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or raise public interest concerns.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the merging parties provided sufficient clarification regarding the nature of Yakjin Trading Corp's business and its lack of overlap with Acorp.
  • No evidence was presented to suggest that the transaction would negatively affect employment or other public interest factors.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed transaction between Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited and Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

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

[2016] ZACT 107

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM118Sep16

In the matter between:

Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited

Primary Acquiring Firm

and

Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited

Primary Target Firm

Panel

:Mondo Mazwai (Presiding Member)

:Medi Mokuena (Tribunal Member)

: lmraan Valodia (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

:26 October 2016

Order Issued on : 26 October 2016

Reasons Issued on : 23 November 2016

Reasons for Decision

Approval

[ 1] On 26 October 2016, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved a merger between Main Street 1463 Proprietary Limited ("Main Street") and Acorp Gifts Proprietary Limited ("Acorp").

[ 2 ] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to transaction

Primary acquiring firm

[ 3 ] The primary acquiring firm, Main Street is controlled by Carlyle Sub-Saharan African Fund Limited ("CSSAF"). CSSAF is a special purpose company established by private equity investment funds managed by affiliates of the Carlyle Group. The primary acquiring firm and its controllers and firms it controls in South Africa will hereafter be referred to as the Acquiring Group.

[ 4 ] The Acquiring Group is an asset manager which manages funds that invests globally in corporate private equity, real assets and fund solutions, amongst others. Main Street itself is newly incorporated for purposes of this transaction and does not conduct any business activities.

Primary target firm

[ 5 ] The primary target firm, Acorp is jointly controlled by four companies which ultimately results in the firm being controlled by Amit Brill, Nimrod Barlev and Craig Friedman and the David Brouze Trust.

[ 6 ] Acorp is a wholesale supplier of various branded promotional products such as iPad and tablet holders, umbrellas and lanyards which it then on-sells to distributors and re-sellers who would on-sell the products to customers in the corporate sector.

Proposed transaction and rationale

[ 7 ] The proposed transaction involves Main Street acquiring control over Acorp through the acquisition of 70.1% of the issued share capital. The remaining issued share capital will be retained by three of the four previous shareholders Amit Brill, Nimrod Barlev and Craig Friedman.

[ 8 ] The Acquiring Group submits that the proposed transaction is an attractive investment opportunity for it. The primary target firm finds that the proposed transaction would allow it to dilute a portion of its equity while simultaneously allowing one of its shareholders to exit the business.

Impact on competition

[ 9 ] According to the Competition Commission's ("the Commission") findings the proposed transaction does not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any market. This is because the Commission found that there was no overlap present between the target and Acquiring Group as the target firm is involved in the wholesale of branded promotional products whereas the Acquiring Group manages investment funds.

[ 10 ] At the hearing we required clarification on the potential overlap between the Acquiring Groups interest in Yakjin Trading Corp ("Yakjin") which is an apparel manufacturer and Acorp which wholesales apparel. The merging parties submitted that Yakjin manufactures branded clothing as opposed to Acorp which supplies unbranded products for the purposes of branding them with corporate logos for corporate advertising. Moreover, the merging parties submitted that there were a number of clothing suppliers such as Edcon and the Foschini Group which would constrain the merged firm post-merger. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we concur with the Commission's competition assessment, i.e. that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition as there is no overlap present.

Public interest

[ 11 ] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will not result in an adverse impact on employment.[1] The proposed transaction further raises no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

[ 12 ] In light of the above, we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

23 November 2016

DATE

_______

Ms Mondo Mazwai

Ms Medi Mokuena and Prof lmraan Valodia concurring

Tribunal Researcher: Aneesa Ravat

For the merging parties: Richardt van Rensburg of EnsAfrica and Shawn van der Meulen of Webberwentzel

For the Commission: Boitumelo Makgabo and Xolela Nokele

[1] Inter alia merger record page 11.

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.