Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

VKB Agri Processors (Pty) Ltd v VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd (LM041May18) [2018] ZACT 29 (10 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 would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market for wheat flour and bread products, as VKB Agri Processors already held a controlling majority interest in VKB Flour Mills. The transaction merely removed LDCA's minority protection rights and conferred sole control on VKB Agri. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's view that the transaction was pro-competitive, as it eliminated structural links between competitors in the maize milling market. No negative impact on employment or other public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The large merger between VKB Agri Processors (Pty) Ltd and VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

VKB Agri Processors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Daryl Dingley

VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Application / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
VKB Agri Processors argued that acquiring the remaining shares in VKB Flour Mills would not alter the competitive dynamics of the market, as it already held a controlling majority interest. The transaction would merely remove LDCA's minority protection rights and confer sole control. The parties submitted that there would be no negative impact on employment and no other public interest concerns.
Respondent
The Competition Commission contended that the transaction would not change the market structure, as VKB Agri already controlled VKB Flour Mills. The Commission further argued that the transaction was pro-competitive, as it removed structural links between VKB Agri and LDCA, who are competitors in the maize milling market. The Commission found no adverse effects on employment or other public interest issues.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 12A(1)(a) of the Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    A merger will not be prohibited if it does not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed in merger proceedings, including the effect on employment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market for wheat flour and bread products, as VKB Agri Processors already held a controlling majority interest in VKB Flour Mills. The transaction merely removed LDCA's minority protection rights and conferred sole control on VKB Agri. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's view that the transaction was pro-competitive, as it eliminated structural links between competitors in the maize milling market. No negative impact on employment or other public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the Food and Allied Workers Union was consulted and did not raise any concerns regarding the transaction.
  • The Tribunal observed that the transaction did not affect the continued operation of the target firms post-merger.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The large merger between VKB Agri Processors (Pty) Ltd and VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd is approved unconditionally.

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 29

Panel : Ms Mondo Mazwai (Presiding Member) : Mrs Medi Mokuena(Tribunal Member) : Prof Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member) Heard on : 13 June 2018

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM041May18

In the matter between

VKB Agri Processors (Pty) Ltd Primary

Acquiring Firm

And

VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd

Primary Target Firm

REASONS

FOR DECISION

Approval

[1] On 13 June 2018, the Competition Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) unconditionally approved the large merger between VKB Agri (Pty) Ltd (“VKB Agri”) and VKB Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd (“VKB Flour”).

[2] The reasons for the approval follow.

Parties to the transaction and their activities

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is VKB Agri, currently the majority holder of VKB Flour.

[4] VKB Agri is a wholly owned subsidiary of VKB Bellegings (Edms) Bpk (Pty) Ltd (“VKB Bellegings”). VKB Bellegings is a widely held company and is thus not controlled by any single shareholder. VKB

Bellegings, VKB Agri and all of their subsidiaries in South Africa are further referred to as the “VKB Group”. The VKB Group has a diverse range of interests in the agricultural sector, ranging from maize milling to research and development of seed technology.

Primary target firm

[5] The primary target firm is VKB Flour, a manufacturer of wheat flour, bread and other bakery products. VKB Flour is majority owned by VKB Agri with Louis Dreyfus Commodities Africa (Pty) Ltd (“LDCA”)

as a minority shareholder.

Proposed transaction and rationale

[6] In terms of the proposed transaction, VKB Agri intends to acquire the remaining interest in VKB Flour from LDCA, becoming the sole owner and controller.

[7] LDCA wishes to dispose of its interest in VKB Flour as VKB Flour does not form part of its core business and LDCA does not lead the operations.

Relevant market and impact on competition

Horizontal assessment

[8] The Competition Commission (“The Commission”) evaluated the effect of the proposed transaction on the market for the manufacture and supply of wheat flour and bread products. The transaction does

not change the structure of the relevant market as VKB Agri already holds a controlling majority interest in the target firm. The

transaction simply removes LDCA’s minority protection rights, conferring unfettered sole control of VKB Flour onto VKB Agri.

[9] Furthermore, the Commission is of the view that the proposed transaction is pro-competitive as it removes structural links between VKB Agri and LDCA who are competitors in the maize milling market.

[10] We accordingly agree with the Commission’s analysis.

Public interest

[11] The merging parties submitted that the proposed transaction will have no negative impact on employment, as the target firms will continue to operate as is post-merger. The employee representatives of VKB Flour, the Food

and Allied Workers Union, were contacted by the Commission regarding the transaction and did not raise any concerns.

[12] The proposed transaction further raised no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

[13] 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 public interest issues arise out of the merger. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

Ms Mondo Mazwai

Mrs Medi Mokuena and Prof Fiona Tregenna

10 July 2018

Tribunal Researcher: Jonathan Thomson

For the merging parties: Daryl Dingley of Webber Wentzel

For the Commission: Tumiso Loate

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.