Pahana Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd v Pahana Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd (25/LM/Feb09) [2009] ZACT 35 (26 May 2009)
The Tribunal found that there is no overlap in the activities of the merging parties, as the acquiring firm is not involved in the markets where the target firm operates. The Commission's investigation confirmed this, and the Tribunal agreed with the conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZACT 35
- Parties
- Applicant: Pahana Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pahana Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 26 May 2009
- Case Number
- 25/LM/Feb09
- Procedural Posture
- Merger Clearance / Decision on Unconditional Approval
- Outcome
- Merger unconditionally approved.
- Judges
- D Lewis, Y Carrim, N Manoim
- Legal Topics
- Merger Clearance, Joint Control, Public Interest, Market Overlap
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pahana Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Pahana Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Merger Clearance / Decision on Unconditional Approval
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.
- 2 Whether there are any public interest concerns arising from the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that there is no overlap in the activities of the merging parties, as the acquiring firm is not involved in the markets where the target firm operates. The Commission's investigation confirmed this, and the Tribunal agreed with the conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market. Furthermore, there are no public interest issues arising from the transaction. Accordingly, the merger was unconditionally approved.
Court Disposition
Merger unconditionally approved.
Orders
- The merger between Pahana Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd and Pahana Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd is unconditionally approved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL SOUTH AFRICA
Case NO: 25/LM/Feb09
In the matter between:
Pahana Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd Acquiring Firm
And
Pahana Investments 91 (Pty) Ltd Target Firm
Panel : D Lewis (Presiding Member); Y Carrim (Tribunal Member) and N Manoim (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 08 April 2009
Decided on : 08 April 2009
Reasons Issued on : 26 May 2009
Reasons for Decision
Approval
[1] On 08 April 2009 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate unconditionally approving the merger between Pahana
Investments 93 (Pty) Ltd and Pahana Investments 91(Pty) Ltd. The reasons appear below.
Parties
[2] The acquiring firm is Pahana Investments 93 (âPahana 93â), a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Pahana 93 is jointly controlled by Vunani Capital (Pty) Ltd (âVunani Capitalâ)1 with 51% and Absa Bank Ltd2 with 49%.
[3] The primary target firm is Pahana Investments 91(Pty) Ltd (âHoldcoâ), a private company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa.3
Transaction
[4] In terms of the proposed transaction, Pahana 93 intends to acquire 40% of the entire issued capital with minority protections rights in Holdco. On completion of the proposed transaction Pahana 93 will have joint control over Holdco.
Parties Activities
[5] Pahana 93 is a special purpose vehicle which has not previously traded. The Vunani group of companies are involved in financial services and they are involved through Vunani Ltd in stock broking, property investment and property development, private equity, investment banking, asset management and research as well as corporate finance. The parties also submit that the Vunani Group is further involved through Vunani Capital in capital raising, transactional support services, due diligence investigations, capitalization issues and share buy backs. The Absa Bank is a registered financial services provider, which provides various banking and financial services, including, inter
alia, retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth management and long and short term insurance as well
as property investment.
[6] Holdco is active regionally in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape through Civilis entities. Civilis SC and Civilis 2000 render services to firms in the construction industry, providing the following: bulk earthworks, being the moving of large quantities of soil; agricultural developments, being the provision of roads and related social infrastructure and construction of all types of infrastructure including, inter alia, roads, sewer and water reticulation and drainage structure. Road Smart specialises in road rehabilitation, relays and road surfacing. Civils Plant Hire sole assets comprise the equipment and machinery used by Civilis SC, Civilis 2000 and Road Smart. Civilis Plant Hireâs activities are entirely in house for the above-mentioned firms.
Rationale for the Transaction
[7] The acquiring group believes that the Civilis entities are an attractive investment opportunity to the shareholders and they also support their empowerment initiatives.
[8] Holdco views the transaction as a means by which, the Civilis entities through a strategic partnership (with particular emphasis on empowerment) can achieve a Level 9 registered contractor status.4
Competition Analysis
[9] The Commissionâs investigation revealed that there is no overlap in the activities of the merging parties, as the acquiring firm does not have an interest in bulk earthwork, agriculture development and construction of infrastructure where the target firm is active. We therefore agree with the Commissionâs conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.
Conclusion
[10] There are no public interest issues. Accordingly the transaction is unconditionally approved.
___________________ 26 May 2009
Y Carrim Date
Tribunal Member
N Manoim and D Lewis concurring
Tribunal Researcher : J Ngobeni
For the merging parties : Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs
For the Commission : Alex Constantinou (Mergers and Acquisitions)
1 Vunani Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vunani Limited (âVunani Limitedâ), which is in turn controlled by Vunani Group (Pty) Ltd (âVunani Groupâ). Vunani Group is jointly controlled by the following trusts: The END Trust 39.9%; The Mabone Trust 24.94% and the Nicam Trust 24.94%.
2 ABSA Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of ABSA Group Ltd (âABSA Groupâ). ABSA Group is controlled by Barclays, a public company
listed on the London, Tokyo and New York Stock Exchanges. Pahana does not control any firm.
3 Holdco is held by the following shareholders: Robert Leonard Starke 44.38%; Colin Shapiro 44.38% and Dawid van Der Merwe 11.24%. Holdco controls the following four firms Civils 2000 (Southern Cape) (Pty) Ltd (âCivils SCâ); Civils 2000 (Pty) Ltd (âCivils 2000â); Civils (Plant Hire) (Pty) Ltd (âCivils Plant Hireâ); and Road Smart Asphalting (Pty) Ltd. These entities are collectively referred to as the âCivils entitiesâ.
4 The Civilis entities are currently rated as Level 8 registered contractors.
3