Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Uniliver International Holdings N.V v Uniliver N.V and Uniliver PLC (LM043May18) [2018] ZACT 30 (26 July 2018)

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 transaction is an internal reorganisation of the Unilever group at the parent level, with no impact on operational control or employment in South Africa. The Competition Commission's investigation confirmed that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. Concerns raised by the union were either addressed by written assurances from the merging parties or found to be unrelated to the merger. No public interest or employment issues arise from the transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed merger between Unilever International Holdings N.V., Unilever N.V., and Unilever PLC is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Unilever International Holdings N.V.

Applicant Counsel: L Naidu and A Tzarevski

Unilever N.V.

Respondent

Unilever PLC

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties submitted that the transaction is an internal reorganisation at the parent level and will not affect business operations or employment in South Africa. They confirmed no retrenchments are contemplated and provided written assurance to both the union and the Commission that no job losses will result from the merger.
Respondent
The National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits and Allied Workers raised concerns regarding collective bargaining, pending labour court cases, possible retrenchments, and lack of consultation. The Commission attempted to clarify these concerns but found most were unrelated to the merger and received written confirmation from the merging parties that no job losses would occur.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    A merger that constitutes an internal reorganisation at the shareholder level and does not affect operational control is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including employment, must be assessed in merger proceedings, but only merger-specific concerns are relevant.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction is an internal reorganisation of the Unilever group at the parent level, with no impact on operational control or employment in South Africa. The Competition Commission's investigation confirmed that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. Concerns raised by the union were either addressed by written assurances from the merging parties or found to be unrelated to the merger. No public interest or employment issues arise from the transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the union was invited to make submissions but did not attend the hearing or provide further representations.
  • The merging parties reiterated that the transaction would have no impact on South African operations or employees, and this was confirmed in writing to both the union and the Commission.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed merger between Unilever International Holdings N.V., Unilever N.V., and Unilever PLC 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

[2018] ZACT 30

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM043May18

In the matter between:

Unilever International Holdings N.V.

Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Unilever N.V. and Unilever

PLC

Primary Target Firms

Panel

: AW Wessels (Presiding Member)

: E Daniels (Tribunal Member)

: Prof F Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

: 04 July 2018

Order Issued on : 04 July 2018

Reasons Issued on : 26 July 2018

REASONS

FOR DECISION

APPROVAL

[1] On 04 July 2018, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the proposed transaction involving Unilever

International Holdings N.V. ("Unilever Holdings"), Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC, hereafter collectively referred to as "the merging parties".

[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

PARTIES

TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is Unilever Holdings, a newly incorporated Dutch entity for the purposes of the proposed transaction. Upon implementation of the proposed transaction, Unilever Holdings will be the ultimate controlling entity of Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC and will be listed on the Euronext, London and New York Stock Exchanges.

Primary target firms

[4] The primary target firms are Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC. Unilever N.V. is listed on the Euronext Amsterdam Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. Unilever PLC is listed on the London Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.

[5] In South Africa, Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC indirectly control Unilever South Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("Unilever SA Holdings"), which in turn controls Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd ("Unilever SA").

[6] The Unilever group is engaged in the manufacture and supply of a wide range of products including food, beverage, cleaning agents and personal care products.

PROPOSED

TRANSACTION

[7] In terms of the proposed transaction, Unilever Holdings intends to acquire Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC. Post-merger, Unilever

Holdings will be the controlling entity of the Unilever group (along with its subsidiaries), which includes Unilever SA Holdings and Unilever SA.

COMPETITION ANALYSIS

[8] The Competition Commission ("Commission") found that the proposed transaction is an internal reorganisation of the Unilever group and therefore concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market in South Africa. We concur with the Commission in this regard.

PUBLIC INTEREST

[9] In their merger filing the merging parties submitted that it is not anticipated that the proposed transaction will have any negative effect on employment. They specifically submitted that no retrenchments are contemplated as a result of the proposed transaction.[1]

[10] However, during the Commission's investigation, the National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits and Allied Workers ("NUFBWSAW"), raised certain labour related concerns which the union wanted the Unilever group to resolve prior to it supporting the proposed transaction. These concerns related to various issues including collective bargaining, pending labour court cases, possible retrenchments and a lack of consultation by the merging parties.

[11] The Commission submitted that it attempted to further engage NUFBWSAW in order to better understand its concerns and in order to determine if the concerns were merger specific. The Commission said that it invited NUFBWSAW to a meeting to discuss the issues, but despite numerous telephonic and email engagements, it received no further clarity.

[12] The Commission furthermore submitted that it engaged with the merging parties who had further subsequent consultations with NUFBWSAW in which it was reiterated that the proposed transaction will not result in any job losses. The merging parties provided written confirmation to this effect to both NUFBWSAW and the Commission. In addition, the Commission noted that the balance of the issues raised by NUFBWSAW appear to be unrelated to the proposed merger since they relate to inter alia collective agreements and pre-merger pending labour court cases. The Commission further found that it was unlikely that the proposed transaction would raise employment concerns since the proposed transaction essentially entails an internal reorganisation of the Unilever group at a shareholder level and not at an operational level.

[13] The Tribunal invited NUFBWSAW to attend the hearing and make written or oral submissions, if it wished to. NUFBWSAW however was not present at the hearing and made no further representations.

[14] Responding to questions from the Tribunal, the merging parties at the hearing confirmed that they had a meeting with NUFBWSAW regarding the union's concerns. The merging parties emphasised that the proposed transaction entails a reorganisation at group parent level and that it in fact will have no impact on the business operations of Unilever in South Africa, including employees. The latter was reduced to writing and sent to the union and a similar letter was also sent to the Commission.[2]

[15] Given the above, we have no reason to believe that the proposed transaction raises employment concerns.

[16] The proposed transaction furthermore raises no other public interest issues.

CONCLUSION

[17] In light of the above, we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. In addition, no employment concerns or any other public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

Mr AW Wessels

Mr E Daniels and Prof. F Tregenna concurring

26 July 2018

Tribunal Case Manager : Ndumiso Ndlovu

For the Merging Parties : L Naidu and A Tzarevski of Baker McKenzie

For the Commission

: I Mhlongo and A Mfuphi

[1] Merger Record, pages 7 and 129.

[2] Transcript, pages 8 and 9

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, 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.