Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd v Emira Property Fund Ltd (LM031Jun21) [2021] ZACT 54 (19 August 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZACT 54
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- E Daniels, I Valodia, T Vilakazi
- Case number
- LM031Jun21
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- E Daniels, I Valodia, T Vilakazi
- Case number
- LM031Jun21
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 NiekerkEmira Property Fund Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Application / Final Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed merger between Maitlantic 10 (Pty) Ltd and Emira Property Fund Ltd is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
- 02
Whether the merger raises any public interest concerns under the Competition Act.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Competition Tribunal
Order
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 (âthe Actâ) the Competition Tribunal orders thatâ
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 (âMaitlanticâ) and Emira Property Fund Ltd (âEmiraâ).
[2] Maitlantic is controlled by I Group Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd (âIGCHâ), which is in turn wholly owned by I Group Investments (Pty) Ltd (âIGIâ). IGI is a subsidiary of I Group Investment Trust (âIGITâ) 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 IGTâs shareholding in Collins Property Projects (Pty) Ltd (âCollinsâ).[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 (âBBBEEâ) 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 partiesâ 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 Groupâs residential properties are situated in Western Cape and Eastern Cape only, while the Target Groupâs 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 Mitchellâs 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 (âSAPOAâ), 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 âAcquiring 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 Collinsâ 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 âTarget Groupâ.
[4] Two Emira shareholders â namely Luxanio Trading 157 (Pty) Ltd and Tamela Property Investments (Pty) Ltd â have provided irrevocable undertakings that they will reject the mandatory offer.
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.