NETCARE KWA-ZULU (PTY) LTD and TRESSO TRADING 119 (PTY) LTD (55/LM/Jun06) [2006] ZACT 71 (18 August 2006)
- Citation
- [2006] ZACT 71
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, L Reyburn, M Mokuena
- Case number
- 55/LM/Jun06
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- N Manoim, L Reyburn, M Mokuena
- Case number
- 55/LM/Jun06
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the transaction merely converted Netcare Kwa-Zulu's rights in the property from long-term lessee to owner, with no impact on barriers to entry in the hospital market or any significant effect in the property market. The merger would not result in the substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant markets. Furthermore, there were no public interest concerns, as no job losses were anticipated and the transaction did not affect other public interest aspects. The Tribunal therefore approved the merger unconditionally.
Court disposition
Merger approved unconditionally.
Orders
- The proposed transaction between Netcare Kwa-Zulu (Pty) Ltd and Tresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.
02
Material facts
Parties
Netcare Kwa-Zulu (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: A NortonTresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Z Mngadi03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Clearance / Reasons for Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the acquisition of the hospital property by Netcare Kwa-Zulu from Tresso Trading will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant markets.
- 02
Whether the transaction raises any public interest concerns, including job losses.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Netcare Kwa-Zulu argued that acquiring ownership of the hospital property would allow it to achieve savings on current and future rentals, as it would become the owner rather than the lessee. The transaction would not affect competition in the hospital or property markets, nor would it have any negative public interest impact, including job losses.
- Respondent
- Tresso Trading submitted that its shareholders had decided to divest from the property industry entirely and that the sale of the hospital property to Netcare Kwa-Zulu was part of this strategy. Tresso confirmed that the transaction would not affect competition or public interest.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
A merger will only be prohibited if it is likely to result in the substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market.
- 02
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
Public interest considerations, such as employment effects, must be assessed in merger proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the transaction merely converted Netcare Kwa-Zulu's rights in the property from long-term lessee to owner, with no impact on barriers to entry in the hospital market or any significant effect in the property market. The merger would not result in the substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant markets. Furthermore, there were no public interest concerns, as no job losses were anticipated and the transaction did not affect other public interest aspects. The Tribunal therefore approved the merger unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that Tresso Trading was in the process of divesting from the property industry and had sold the bulk of its property portfolio.
- The Tribunal did not make a definitive finding on the relevant market, as it was unnecessary for the purposes of this transaction.
Court disposition
Merger approved unconditionally.
- The proposed transaction between Netcare Kwa-Zulu (Pty) Ltd and Tresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.
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
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: 55/LM/Jun06
In the matter between:
NETCARE KWA-ZULU (PTY) LTD Acquiring Firm
and
TRESSO TRADING 119 (PTY) LTD Target Firm
_______________
Panel : N Manoim (Presiding Member), L Reyburn (Tribunal
Member), and M Mokuena (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 02 August 2006
Order Issued on : 02 August 2006
Reasons Issued on : 18 August 2006
REASONS FOR DECISION
Approval
[1] The Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate on 02 August 2006 approving without conditions the proposed merger between Netcare KwaZulu (Pty) Ltd (âNetcare KwaZuluâ) and Tresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd (âTressoâ).
The parties and the merger transaction
[2] Netcare KwaZulu (the primary acquiring firm) is buying a property (the Umhlanga Hospital which is situated at Umhlanga Rocks, in Durban) from Tresso (the target firm). Netcare KwaZulu is a wholly owned subsidiary of Netcare Hospital Group (Pty) Ltd (âNetcare Hospital Groupâ).1 Netcare has interest in a number of business entities, the relevant entity for our analysis being Netcare Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd
(âNetcare Propertyâ). Tresso is an unlisted property loan stock company.2
[3] In terms of the proposed transaction, Netcare KwaZulu will acquire the property from Tresso. Netcare KwaZulu is the present lessee of the target firmâs property. In other words, Netcare KwaZulu is lessee of the property prior to the proposed acquisition and will become the owner and occupant of the property post acquisition. We are advised that the target property was previously leased to Umhlanga Medical Centre Ltd (âUmhlanga Medical Centreâ) by Tresso.3 Furthermore, on 15 February 2006 Netcare KwaZulu took cession of the lease between Tresso and Umhlanga Medical Centre from Umhlanga Medical Centre. The effect of such a cession is that Netcare KwaZulu will, as stated above, become the lessee of the target property.
Tresso took a decision to sell the aforesaid property to Netcare KwaZulu hence the present transaction.4
[4] Prior to the proposed transaction, the target property was owned and controlled by Tresso. Post-acquisition, Netcare KwaZulu will own and control the aforesaid property.
Rationale for the transaction
[5] From Netcareâs perspective, the proposed acquisition presents Netcare with an ideal opportunity to increase its savings on current and future rentals given that post-merger Netcare will be the owner as opposed to it being the lessee of the property.
[6] The current Tresso shareholders have made a strategic decision to divest from the property industry entirely.5
The relevant market
[7] We are for purposes of this transaction focussed on the market of property ownership especially with regards to hospital buildings. As stated above, Netcareâs core business is the ownership, operation and management of hospitals and related healthcare organisations. The target property is a building currently used as a hospital in Umhlanga Rocks, Durban. It will continue to be used as a hospital post-merger. We have already highlighted that the target property is currently leased to Netcare KwaZulu (the acquiring firm) in terms of a long term lease that expires on 13 June 2017.
[8] Tressoâs business is that of a property owner and derives its income from rentals received from the tenants in the properties it owns. The merging parties advised us that Tresso has to date sold the bulk of its property portfolio and that it is in the process of transferring those properties.
[9] In the result, we need not make a definitive finding on the relevant market.
Competition analysis
[10] The transaction converts Netcareâs rights to the property from that of long terms lessee to owner. As such the merger does not impact on either barriers to entry in the hospital market or have any significance in the property market. We need not analyse this merger any further as in our view the proposed merger is unlikely to result in the substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant markets.
Public Interest
[11] The merging parties submitted that proposed transaction would not have an impact on any public interest aspects. In addition, the merging parties anticipate no job losses post merger.
Conclusion
[12] We are satisfied that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the relevant markets. We accordingly approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.
______
N Manoim
L Reyburn and M Mokuena concurring.
Tribunal Researcher: T Masithulela
For the merging parties : Z Mngadi (Jowell Glyn & Marais Inc)
For Netcare Group : A Norton (Webber Wentzel Bowens)
For the Commission : D Motsamai assisted by M Mohlala and E
Ramohlola (Mergers & Acquisitions)
1 Netcare Hospital Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinic Holdings Ltd (âClinic Holdingsâ), which is ultimately wholly owned and controlled by Network Healthcare Holdings Ltd (âNetcareâ). Netcare is a public company listed on the JSE, and is not controlled by any single shareholder. However, Netcareâs largest shareholders which hold 5% or more of its total issued shares are Netpartner Investments Ltd (18.7%) and The Public Investment Corporation Ltd (17.29%).
2 Tresso is controlled by Investec Employee Benefits Ltd (76.92%), Capital Alliance Life Ltd (18.96%) and Standard Bank Nominees for Liberty Group Ltd (4.12%).
3 Umhlanga Medical Centre is a wholly owned subsidiary of Netcare Hospital Group.
4 See the merging partiesâ second letter to the Commission dated 10 July 2006 together with the merging partiesâ Sale Agreement.
5 See pages 48 and 68 of the merger 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.