South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd v Emira Property Fund Ltd (LM031Jun21) [2021] ZACT 54 (19 August 2021)

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 between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd and Emira Property Fund Ltd is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The parties' overlapping activities in retail, office, and industrial property markets were assessed, with particular attention to geographic nodes and market definitions. The Commission's analysis indicated low market shares and limited accretion, and the parties would continue to face competition from other firms. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally under section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd and Emira Property Fund Ltd is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

02

Material facts

Parties

Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Misha van Niekerk

Emira Property Fund Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Application / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant submitted that the merger would not result in any substantial lessening of competition, as the parties' property portfolios overlap only minimally and they would continue to face competition from other market participants. The applicant further argued that there are no negative public interest implications arising from the transaction.
Respondent
The respondent did not oppose the merger and did not raise any substantive arguments against approval. The Competition Commission, acting as respondent, assessed the merger and found that market shares and accretion were low, and that the parties would continue to face competition post-merger. The Commission also found no public interest concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 1998, section 16(2)(a)

    A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, taking into account market shares, competitive dynamics, and public interest factors.

  2. 02

    Tribunal case law; SAPOA guidance

    The assessment of horizontal overlaps must consider the geographic scope and nature of the property portfolios involved, including the location and type of properties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd and Emira Property Fund Ltd is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. The parties' overlapping activities in retail, office, and industrial property markets were assessed, with particular attention to geographic nodes and market definitions. The Commission's analysis indicated low market shares and limited accretion, and the parties would continue to face competition from other firms. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally under section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act.

Obiter and limits

  • The Commission's ongoing investigation into the Collins Property Projects (Pty) Ltd transaction did not affect the assessment of the present merger, but Collins' activities were included to accommodate a worst-case scenario.
  • The Tribunal noted that the mandatory offer to acquire the remaining shares in Emira would not alter the competitive assessment, as key shareholders had provided irrevocable undertakings to reject the offer.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd and Emira Property Fund Ltd is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

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

Order

[2021] ZACT 54

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No.: LM031Jun21

In the matter between:

Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Emira Property Fund Ltd Primary Target Firm

Panel: E Daniels (Presiding Member)

I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

T Vilakazi (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 19 August 2021

Order Issued on: 19 August 2021

Reasons Issued on: 19 August 2021

ORDER

Further to the recommendation of the Competition Commission in terms of section 14A(1)(b) of the Competition Act, 1998 (“the Act”) the Competition Tribunal orders that–

1. the merger between the abovementioned parties be approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and

2. a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

19 August 2021

Presiding Member

Date

Mr Enver Daniels

Concurring: Prof Imraan Valodia and Dr Thando Vilakazi

Case no: LM031Jun21

Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd (Primary Acquiring Firm)

Emira Property Fund Ltd (Primary Target Firm)

Order Issued on: 19 August 2021

REASONS

FOR DECISION

[1] On 19 August 2021, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved a large merger between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd (“Maitlantic”) and Emira Property Fund Ltd (“Emira”).

[2] Maitlantic is controlled by I Group Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“IGCH”), which is in turn wholly owned by I Group Investments (Pty) Ltd (“IGI”). IGI is a subsidiary of I Group Investment Trust (“IGIT”) and is controlled by its trustees. Maitlantic does not control any firm, while IGIT controls several subsidiaries.[1] Of relevance to the proposed transaction is IGT’s shareholding in Collins Property Projects (Pty) Ltd (“Collins”).[2]

[3] Emira is listed on the JSE and its shares are widely held. Emira is currently comprised of two registered broad-based black economic empowerment (“BBBEE”) shareholders, namely, Luxiano Trading 157 (Pty) Ltd and Tamela Property Investments (Pty) Ltd, who collectively hold 5% of Emira shares.[3]

[4] The Acquiring Group is a property holding company whose property portfolio comprises retail, office, residential and industrial properties throughout South Africa.

[5] Emira is a real estate investment trust which invests in a diversified portfolio of commercial and retail assets in major metropolitan areas across South Africa.

[6] Pre-merger the Acquiring Group holds an interest of approximately 35% in Emira. The Acquiring Group has made a mandatory offer to acquire the entire balance of the shares in Emira.[4]

[7] The merging parties’ activities overlap horizontally as regards retail, office, industrial and residential properties in Gauteng, KZN, Western Cape and Eastern Cape. However, the Commission was of the view that there is no horizontal overlap regarding their residential properties as the Acquiring Group’s residential properties are situated in Western Cape and Eastern Cape only, while the Target Group’s residential activities are confined to Gauteng. The Commission further noted that almost all the horizontal overlaps arise due to the inclusion of Collins as part of the Acquiring Group. If Collins is excluded from the Acquiring Group, the horizontal overlaps are limited to Pretoria CBD where the merging parties own convenience centres within the same catchment area and in Cape Town through their jointly owned convenience centre named Mitchells Plain Town Centre.

Retail property

[8] The Commission did not conclude on a definite market definition but assessed the following retail markets:

8.1. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of the Tramshed, located in Pretoria CBD, Gauteng Province;

8.2. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of Park Boulevard located in Durban North, KZN Province;

8.3. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of Park Boulevard located in Umhlanga, KZN Province;

8.4. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of Nquthu (Manzolwandle), located in Nquthu, KZN Province;

8.5. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of Nongoma Shopping Centre, located in Nongoma, KZN Province;

8.6. The provision of rentable space in convenience centres within a 10km radius of Matatiele Centre located in Matatiele, Eastern Cape Province; and

8.7. The provision of rentable space in the convenience centre in Mitchell’s Plein, located in Cape Town, Western Cape Province.

Office Property

[9] In line with Tribunal case law and guidance from South African Property Owners Association (“SAPOA”), the Commission assessed the market for the provision of rentable Grade A office properties within the Umhlanga/La Luca office node, within KZN Province.

Light industrial property

[10] The Commission assessed the effects of the proposed transaction in the following light industrial property markets:

10.1. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within Epping/Airport/Langa and Goodwood/Parrow/Belville nodes;

10.2. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within the Pinetown/New Germany nodes;

10.3. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within a broader market encompassing the Durban North, Springfield Park, North Coast and Riverhorse nodes;

10.4. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within a broader node encompassing the adjacent Germiston and Kempton Park nodes;

10.5. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within a broader node encompassing the adjacent Midrand and Centurion nodes; and

10.6. The provision of rentable space in light industrial property within a broader node encompassing the adjacent Sandton/Randburg and Roodepoort nodes.

[11] The Commission was of the view that the proposed merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition due to the low market shares, market share accretion across markets, and the fact that the parties will continue to face competition from other players post-merger.

[12] The merger raises no public interest concerns.

[13] We concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, or to have a negative impact on public interest.

Signed by:Enver Daniels

Signed at:2021-08-19 16:53:58 +02:00

Reason:Witnessing Enver Daniels

19 August 2021

Mr Enver Daniels

Date

Prof Imraan Valodia and Dr Thando Vilakazi concurring.

Tribunal Case Manager: Camilla Mathonsi

For the Merging Parties Misha van Niekerk of Adams & Adams Attorneys

For the Commission: Wiri Gumbie and Rakgole Mokolo

[1]

IGIT and all the firms controlled by it will collectively be referred to as the I Group or “Acquiring Group

[2] The Commission noted that in 2019, the Acquiring Group acquired a 25.7% interest in Collins, without notification to the Commission. The Commission is still separately investigating the Collins transaction but has included Collins’ activities as part of the Acquiring Group in its assessment in order to accommodate a worst-case scenario.

[3] Emira and its subsidiaries will collectively be referred to as the “Target Group”.

[4] Two Emira shareholders – namely Luxanio Trading 157 (Pty) Ltd and Tamela Property Investments (Pty) Ltd – have provided irrevocable undertakings that they will reject the mandatory offer.

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, 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.