Nedbank Limited and Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd and Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd / Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd (71/LM/Dec03) [2004] ZACT 4 (27 January 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZACT 4
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- D. Lewis, N. Manoim, P. Maponya
- Case number
- 71/LM/DEC03
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- D. Lewis, N. Manoim, P. Maponya
- Case number
- 71/LM/DEC03
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the merger does not result in any overlap, as neither Nedbank nor its controlling shareholder Old Mutual owns a controlling interest in any firm competing with the target firms. The target firms were previously under common control, and the merger does not alter this situation. The retrenchments that occurred following the acquisition were undertaken to reduce costs and save the firms from liquidation, and while they raise public interest concerns, these occurred long before the filing and do not warrant blocking the merger. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's recommendation and approved the merger unconditionally.
Court disposition
Merger unconditionally approved.
Orders
- The merger between Nedbank Limited and Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd and Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd is unconditionally approved.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nedbank Limited
Applicant Counsel: Justin BalkinRetail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd
RespondentContinental Beverages (Pty) Ltd
RespondentCompetition Commission
Respondent Counsel: Makgale MohlalaAmounts and remedies
- Net Reduction in Employment: 46
03
Procedural history
Posture
Large Merger / Merger Approval
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the merger leads to a substantial lessening of competition.
- 02
Whether the merger raises significant public interest concerns, particularly regarding retrenchments.
- 03
Whether the merger should be approved unconditionally.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Nedbank argued that the retrenchments following the acquisition were necessary to reduce costs and save the target firms from liquidation. Without the rescue, more jobs would have been lost. The merger does not result in any overlap, as neither Nedbank nor Old Mutual owns a controlling interest in any firm competing with the target firms.
- Respondent
- The Commission acknowledged the public interest concerns raised by the retrenchments but noted that these occurred 25 months prior. The Commission recommended that the retrenchment issue be treated as an aggravating circumstance should the parties be prosecuted for implementing the merger without regulatory approval. The Commission recommended unconditional approval of the merger.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
A merger must not lead to a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market.
- 02
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
Public interest considerations, including the effect on employment, must be assessed in merger proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the merger does not result in any overlap, as neither Nedbank nor its controlling shareholder Old Mutual owns a controlling interest in any firm competing with the target firms. The target firms were previously under common control, and the merger does not alter this situation. The retrenchments that occurred following the acquisition were undertaken to reduce costs and save the firms from liquidation, and while they raise public interest concerns, these occurred long before the filing and do not warrant blocking the merger. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's recommendation and approved the merger unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the retrenchments may be considered an aggravating circumstance if the parties are prosecuted for implementing the merger without regulatory approval.
- The disposal of the target firms to Ceres Fruit Juice (Pty) Ltd was subject to the Tribunal's approval of the prior Nedbank acquisition.
Court disposition
Merger unconditionally approved.
- The merger between Nedbank Limited and Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd and Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd is unconditionally approved.
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
Judgment
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: 71/LM/DEC03
In The Large Merger Between:
Nedbank Limited
And
Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd And Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd
Reasons for Decision
Approval
On 21 January 2003 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate approving the transaction between Nedbank Limited and Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd and Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd. The reasons for this decision follow.
The Parties
The primary acquiring firm is Nedbank Limited (âNedbankâ), a wholly owned subsidiary of Nedcor Limited, which is ultimately owned by Old Mutual plc, a company listed on the London Securities Exchange. No firm controls Old Mutual Plc.
The primary target firms are Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd (âRetail Brandsâ) and Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd (âContinental Beveragesâ). Both were wholly owned subsidiaries of Rouxcor Holdings Limited (âRouxcorâ), a company in liquidation. At the time of the implementation of the merger, Rouxcor Holdings was controlled by Rouxcor Investments (Pty) Ltd, which in turn was controlled by Werenza Trust.
History
In September 2000, Rouxcor signed a Deed of Pledge and Cession in favour of Nedbank. Pursuant to the Deed, Rouxcor ceded and/or pledged to Nedbank the entire issued share capital of each of its five subsidiaries namely, Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd, Retail Brands Interafrica (Pty) Ltd, Sunshine Sugar Specialities Limited, Swazico (Pty) Ltd and Quality Beverages (Pty) Ltd.
Rouxcor defaulted in its obligations to Nedbank and accordingly, Nedbank perfected the pledge in respect of the pledged subsidiaries during December 2000. Between January 2001 and March 2001, Nedbank disposed of three of them namely, Quality Beverages, Swazico and Sunshine Sugar Specialities, but was unable to dispose of the remaining two.
Nedbank has since sold Continental Beverages and Retail Brands to Ceres Fruit Juice (Pty) Ltd. This constituted an intermediate merger, which has been approved by the Commission. We were advised however that this disposal was made subject to the condition that the Tribunal approves the prior Nedbank acquisition of the target firms.
The merging parties have conceded that the merger was implemented prior to their obtaining approval in terms of the Act. This matter is the subject of a separate investigation by the Commission and is therefore not relevant for the purpose of this decision.
The Partiesâ Activities
Nedbank is involved in the financial services industry providing inter alia individual banking, corporate banking, private and professional banking throughout South Africa. Old Mutual provides a broad range of financial services in South Africa, the US and the UK.
Both Retail Brands and Continental Beverages produce, market, sell and distribute alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. However, while Retail Brands mixes and blends the beverages for the owner of the brands, Continental Beverages does not mix or blend the beverages. Both firms are therefore in the bottling and packaging market.
Impact on competition
Neither Nedbank nor its controlling shareholder Old Mutual own a controlling interest in any firm competing with the target firms. The merger therefore leads to no overlap. Since the target firms have historically been part of the same group and thus subject to a single controller the merger does not alter this situation and we therefore need not consider if the firms are potential competitors of one another.
Public interest
The merger, which was implemented during 2000, has had an effect on employees of the target firms as following the acquisition thereof by the acquiring firm, large-scale retrenchments were undertaken.
Prior to the acquisition of control by Nedbank, Continental Beverages (Pty) Ltd had approximately 62 employees and Retail Brands had 106 employees. At the time of filing, Continental Beverages had 106 and Retail Brands has approximately 16 employees. Accordingly there has been an increase in employment at Continental Beverages, but a drastic decrease at Retail Brands. The net reduction in employment for both firms is 46 employees. The parties submit that the aforementioned retrenchments were undertaken in order to reduce costs in an attempt by Nedbank to save the target firms from liquidation. They argue that without the rescue, more jobs would have been lost.
The Commission is of the view that the retrenchments raise significant public interest concerns. However, as this occurred 25 months ago, the Commission recommends that the retrenchment issue be dealt with as an aggravating circumstance should the parties be prosecuted for implementing the merger with the requisite regulatory approval.
Conclusion
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 Commissionâs recommendation that the transaction be unconditionally approved.
27 January 2004
D. Lewis Date
Concurring: N. Manoim and P. Maponya
For the merging parties: Justin Balkin (Edward Nathan & Friedland)
For the Commission: Makgale Mohlala (Mergers and Acquisitions)
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.