South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Northam Platinum Holdings Limited v Northam Platinum Limited (LM024May21) [2021] ZACT 31 (12 July 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 is an internal restructure within the Northam group, designed to unwind the existing BEE structure and implement a new one, resulting in a net increase in HDP ownership. The Commission's investigation revealed no accretion in market shares in the global markets for platinum, palladium, rhodium, or gold, and the merged entity would remain constrained by other major competitors. The merger would not result in retrenchments or job losses, nor would it affect mining rights or Social Labour Plans. No third party raised concerns. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or negatively impact the public interest.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The large merger between Northam Platinum Holdings Limited and Northam Platinum Limited is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Northam Platinum Holdings Limited

Applicant Counsel: R Wilson

Northam Platinum Limited

Respondent Counsel: L Makhubedu

Amounts and remedies

  • Post Merger Market Share (platinum): 6
  • Post Merger Market Share (palladium): 3
  • Post Merger Market Share (rhodium): 7
  • Post Merger Market Share (gold): 0.01
  • HDP Ownership Stake Pre Merger (%): 31.4
  • HDP Ownership Stake Post Merger (%): 32.2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Merger Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the transaction is an internal group restructure to unwind the existing BEE ownership and implement a new BEE structure. They asserted that the merger would not result in any change in market structure or accretion of market shares, would not affect employment, and would promote a greater spread of ownership among HDPs, employees, and communities.
Respondent
The Competition Commission submitted that there are horizontal overlaps in the global markets for platinum, palladium, rhodium, and gold, but the merger would not result in any accretion in market shares or change in market structure. The merged entity would remain constrained by other major competitors. The Commission found no adverse effects on employment, mining rights, or Social Labour Plans, and no 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, or if it has a negative impact on public interest factors.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations include the effect of the merger on employment, the ability of small businesses to compete, and the spread of ownership, particularly among historically disadvantaged persons.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger is an internal restructure within the Northam group, designed to unwind the existing BEE structure and implement a new one, resulting in a net increase in HDP ownership. The Commission's investigation revealed no accretion in market shares in the global markets for platinum, palladium, rhodium, or gold, and the merged entity would remain constrained by other major competitors. The merger would not result in retrenchments or job losses, nor would it affect mining rights or Social Labour Plans. No third party raised concerns. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition or negatively impact the public interest.

Obiter and limits

  • The transaction promotes a greater spread of ownership by facilitating increased participation by employees, communities, and HDPs in the Northam Group.
  • No mining rights or Social Labour Plans will be transferred as a result of the merger, ensuring continuity in Northam's obligations.
  • The unconditional approval reflects the absence of competition or public interest concerns.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

  • The large merger between Northam Platinum Holdings Limited and Northam Platinum Limited 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.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Judgment

[2021] ZACT 31

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case no: LM024May21

Northam Platinum Holdings Limited (Primary Acquiring Firm)

and

Northam Platinum Limited (Primary Target Firm)

REASONS FOR

DECISION

[1] On 2 July 2021, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved a large merger between Northam Platinum Holdings Limited (“Northam Holdings”) and Northam Platinum Limited (“Northam”).

[2] Northam Holdings is a newly incorporated entity, wholly controlled by Northam. The transaction is essentially a restructure within the group to unwind Northam’s existing Black Economic Empowerment (“BEE”) ownership and implement a new BEE structure.[1] Post-merger, Northam will become a subsidiary of Northam Holdings. Northam Holdings will acquire direct control over Northam and will be listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (“JSE”). Northam will be delisted from the JSE.

[3] Northam is a primary producer of three platinum group metals: platinum, palladium and rhodium as well as gold.[2] Northam’s primary customers are the motor manufacturing, jewellery and other industries.

[4] Northam is not controlled by any one firm and wholly owns five firms in South Africa. Northam also holds a single “N” share in Zambezi Platinum (RF) (Pty) Ltd (“Zambezi”) as a protective right.

[5] The Competition Commission (“Commission”) found horizontal overlaps in the global markets for the mining and production of the following four metals, and concluded that the proposed merger does not result in an accretion in market shares, or a change in the structure of the market, as indicated below:

Global markets for the mining and production of: Accretion Post-merger market share Platinum None ± 6% Palladium None ± 3% Rhodium None ± 7% Gold None ± 0.01%

[6] In respect of the platinum, palladium and rhodium markets, the Commission found that the merged entity would remain constrained by other big players such as Anglo Platinum, Impala Platinum and Sibanye-Stillwater. In the gold market, the merged entity would remain constrained by other big players such as Goldfields and AngloGold Ashanti.

[7] The merging parties provided an unequivocal statement that the proposed transaction would have no effect on employment, particularly that it will not result in retrenchments or job losses. The merger also raises no other public interest concerns.

[8] We note that the proposed transaction promotes a greater spread of ownership by facilitating greater participation in the Northam Group by Northam employees, Northam communities and participants of the HDP SPV. This is because the Commission found that the composite transaction will result in a net increase in the ownership stakes of HDPs in the Northam Group from 31.4% to 32.2%.[3] As no mining rights will be transferred, none of Northam’s mine’s Social Labour Plans (SLP) will be transferred. The Commission found that the merger will not impact Northam’s ability to deliver on its SLP objectives.

[9] No third party raised any concerns.

[10] 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 the public interest.

12 July 2021

Ms Mondo Mazwai Date

Mr Andreas Wessels and Prof. Imraan Valodia concurring

Tribunal Case Manager: P Kumbirai

For the Merging Parties: R Wilson and L Makhubedu of Webber Wentzel

For the Commission: Z Siyo and M Aphane

[1] The transaction is the second component in a composite transaction comprising Components A and B. Component A, accelerates the maturity of the existing BEE ownership transaction for existing HDP shareholders in Zambezi Platinum RF (Pty) Ltd (an entity in which Northam’s BEE interests are held) and unlocks value for these shareholders. Component B entails the implementation of a new vendor- financed BEE ownership structure for Northam, with emphasis on participation by broad-based BEE ownership inter alia by employees and communities.

[2] Northam mines these metals from its Zondereinde mine in the Limpopo Province, and its Booysendal North and South mines in the Mpumalanga Province.

[3] This HDP ownership excludes shareholding by other HDPs already invested in Northam.

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.