SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd (12/LM/Mar10) [2010] ZACT 30 (4 May 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZACT 30
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels
- Case number
- 12/LM/Mar10
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels
- Case number
- 12/LM/Mar10
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the acquisition would increase the acquiring group's market share in the relevant market from 6% to 11%, which remains low. The change in market concentration, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, was only 60 points, indicating a minimal impact. The long-term tenant expressed no concerns, and there was no evidence of public interest issues. Therefore, the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market, and approval was granted.
Court disposition
Merger approved; transaction does not substantially prevent or lessen competition.
Orders
- The acquisition of Supply Chain by SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme is approved.
02
Material facts
Parties
SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme
Applicant Counsel: Vani Chetty Competition Law (Pty) LtdOld Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Gross Lettable Area (gla) of Supply Chain: ZAR 30,299
- Pre Merger Market Share of Acquiring Group: ZAR 6
- Post Merger Market Share of Acquiring Group: ZAR 11
- Change in Herfindahl Hirschman Index (hhi): ZAR 60
03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Control / Approval
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed acquisition of Supply Chain by SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable light industrial space in the Jet Park node, Gauteng Province.
- 02
Whether any significant public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- SA Corporate argued that the acquisition is in line with its property investment strategy and that it already owns the adjacent site with the same tenant. The transaction is a result of a pre-emptive right and is not expected to negatively affect tenants, as rental increases are pre-agreed and the tenant can find alternative developers if necessary.
- Respondent
- Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd submitted that the property falls within its Development Fund, which is intended for properties to be developed and sold upon completion. The development of Supply Chain was completed in October 2008, and the sale aligns with its business objectives.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998
A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market.
- 02
Competition Commission Guidelines
Market concentration and changes in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) are relevant factors in assessing the competitive impact of a merger.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the acquisition would increase the acquiring group's market share in the relevant market from 6% to 11%, which remains low. The change in market concentration, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, was only 60 points, indicating a minimal impact. The long-term tenant expressed no concerns, and there was no evidence of public interest issues. Therefore, the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market, and approval was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the tenant's ability to find alternative developers mitigates any risk of disadvantage due to the change in ownership.
- The transaction aligns with both parties' business strategies and does not raise significant public interest concerns.
Court disposition
Merger approved; transaction does not substantially prevent or lessen competition.
- The acquisition of Supply Chain by SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme is 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 OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: 12/LM/Mar10
In the matter between:
SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme Acquiring Firm
And
Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd Target Firm
Panel : Norman Manoim (Presiding Member), Yasmin Carrim (Tribunal Member), and
Andreas Wessels (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 14 April 2010
Order issued on : 14 April 2010
Reasons issued on : 04 May 2010
Reasons for Decision
Approval
On 14 April 2010 the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) approved the acquisition by SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme, represented by ABSA Bank Ltd as trustees for the time being, of a property letting enterprise known as “Supply Chain”. Supply Chain is controlled by Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd. The reasons for approval follow below.
The Transaction
The acquiring firm is SA Corporate Real Estate Trust Scheme (“SA Corporate”), represented by ABSA Bank Ltd as trustees for the time being. SA Corporate is controlled by SA Corporate Real Estate Fund (“SA Corporate Fund”). SA Corporate Fund, listed on the JSE Ltd, is a diversified real estate investment fund with investments in retail, industrial and office property mainly in the metropolitan areas of South Africa.
The target firm is a property letting enterprise known as “Supply Chain”. Supply Chain is controlled by Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (“South Africa”) Ltd (“OMLACSA”). Supply Chain is a light industrial property situated in Jet Park, Gauteng with a gross lettable area (GLA) of 30 299 m2.
SA Corporate is acquiring Supply Chain from OMLACSA and following the implementation of the transaction Supply Chain will be solely
controlled by SA Corporate. Supply Chain is being sold together with all improvements thereon and fixtures and fittings of a permanent nature, which includes all rights and obligations in terms of the lease agreements.
The Rationale
SA Corporate currently owns the site adjacent to Supply Chain in Jet Park which has the same tenant namely, Supply Chain Services; these two buildings are adjoined via a bridge. SA Corporate has a pre-emptive right to purchase Supply Chain which is notarially tied. In addition, general property investment is in line with SA Corporate’s strategy and business activities.
OMLACSA’s rationale for the disposal of Supply Chain is that the property falls within OMLACSA’s “Development Fund”, which is comprised of properties to be developed and sold on completion of development. The development of Supply Chain was completed in October 2008.
The parties and their activities
The relevant activities of the merging parties geographically overlap in rentable light industrial space in the Jet Park Node in the Gauteng Province.
The relevant market and the impact on competition
The relevant market is defined as the market for rentable light industrial space in the Jet Park node, Gauteng Province.
The acquiring group’s aggregated market share in rentable light industrial space in the Jet Park node on implementation of the proposed transaction will increase from the current 6% to 11% post-merger.1 Furthermore, according to the Competition Commission the increase in the level of concentration resulting from this deal, i.e. the change in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 60 points – therefore the change in the level of concentration in the relevant market due to this merger remains low.
With regard to the current tenants’ position, the long term tenant Supply Chain Services has confirmed that it does not have any concerns regarding the proposed merger since there is a pre-agreed rental increase for the duration of the contract period and as such the tenant will not be disadvantaged by the change of ownership of the property. Furthermore, Supply Chain Services confirmed that, although the property is designed specifically to suit its needs, it should be able to find an alternative developer should the lessor impose an unacceptable rental increase post the existing contract.
In light of the above, we find that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the
relevant market.
CONCLUSION
It is unlikely that the proposed transaction will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market since the post-merger market share of the merged entity remains low. Furthermore, there are no significant public interest issues that arise from the proposed deal. We accordingly approve the transaction.
____ 04 May 2010
Andreas Wessels
DATE
Yasmin Carrim and Norman Manoim concurring.
Tribunal Researcher: Thandi Lamprecht
For the merging parties: Vani Chetty Competition Law (Pty) Ltd
For the Commission: Mfundo Ngobese
1 Sources: Merging parties’ gross lettable area (GLA) and SAPOA for total GLA.
3
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.