Vukile Property Fund Limited v Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited and Another (LM080Jul15) [2015] ZACT 115 (7 September 2015)
The Tribunal found that although there is a horizontal overlap in the parties' retail property portfolios, there is no geographic overlap within the relevant area. The Commission's investigation established that Vukile Property Fund does not own retail property within a 15km radius of the target property and that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZACT 115
- Parties
- Applicant: Vukile Property Fund Limited; Respondent: Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: East & West Investments (Proprietary) Limited
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- LM080Jul15
- Procedural Posture
- Merger Approval / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Merger approved unconditionally.
- Judges
- Yasmin Carrim, Medi Mokuena, Imraan I Valodia
- Legal Topics
- Merger Notification, Horizontal Overlap, Public Interest, Market Definition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vukile Property Fund Limited
Applicant
Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited
Respondent
East & West Investments (Proprietary) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Merger Approval / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable retail space in comparative centres.
- 2 Whether the proposed transaction raises any public interest concerns, including adverse impact on employment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that although there is a horizontal overlap in the parties' retail property portfolios, there is no geographic overlap within the relevant area. The Commission's investigation established that Vukile Property Fund does not own retail property within a 15km radius of the target property and that other comparative centres exist to constrain the merged entity. The Tribunal accepted the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse impact on employment and no other public interest concerns arise. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the...
Court Disposition
Merger approved unconditionally.
Orders
- The merger between Vukile Property Fund Limited and Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited and East & West Investments (Proprietary) Limited in respect of the Bedworth Centre Letting Enterprise is approved unconditionally.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: LM080Jul15
In the matter between:
Vukile Property Fund limited
Primary Acquiring Firm
and
Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited and East & West Investments (Proprietary) Limited, in respect of each firms 50% interest in the Bedworth Centre Letting Enterprise Primary Target Firms
Panel
: Ms Yasmin Carrim (Presiding Member)
: Ms Medi Mokuena (Tribunal Member)
: Prof lmraan I Valodia (Tribunal Member)
Heard on
: 12 August 2015
Order Issued on
: 12 August 2015
Reasons Issued on : 7 September 2015
Reasons for Decision
Approval
[1] On 12 August 2015, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the merger between Vukile Property Fund Limited ("Vukile Property Fund") and Flanagan & Gerard Investments (Proprietary) Limited ("Flanagan & Gerard") and East & West Investments (Proprietary) Limited (" East & West Investments"), in respect of each firms 50% interest in the Bedworth Centre Letting Enterprise ("Target Property")[1]
[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.
Parties to transaction
Primary acquiring firm
[3] The primary acquiring firm, Vukile Property Fund is a firm listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange and is not controlled by a single shareholder.
[4] Vukile Property Fund is a property fund with a portfolio that consists of retail space, office space and land under development.
Primary target firm
[5] The Target Property is jointly controlled by Flanagan & Gerard and East & West Investments and comprises Erf 270 Bedworth Park Township, Erf 413 Bedworth Park Township, Erf 427 Bedworth Park Township and Erf 924 Bedworth Park Township.
[6] Flanagan & Gerard's core business activities are the development and investment in regional shopping centres and community centres. East & West Investments is active in the business of property investments.
Proposed transaction and rationale
[7] The proposed transaction involves Vukile Property Fund acquiring 100% of the undivided shares equally held by Flanagan & Gerard and East & West Investments in respect of the Target Property. As a result of the transaction Vukile Property Fund will hold sole ownership and control over the Target Property.
[8] Vukile Property Fund submits that the acquisition is a good strategic fit for its portfolio due to the property's location. The target firms intend to realise the profits of their investments through the proposed transaction.
Impact on competition
[9] The Competition Commission ("the Commission") identified a horizontal overlap in the activities of the parties as the property portfolios of both Vukile Property Fund and the Target Firms comprises retail space.
[10] The Commission evaluated comparative centres within a 15km radius of the target property and found that Vukile Property Fund does not own retail property within that radius. It further found that there are comparative centres within the radius which would constrain the merged entity. As such, the Commission concluded that there is no geographic overlap in the activities of the merging parties and therefore that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition.
[11] We concur with the Commission's competition assessment, i.e. that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the market for rentable space in comparative centres.
Public interest
[12] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will not result in an adverse impact on employment. [2] The proposed transaction further raises 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 from the proposed transactions. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.
07 September 2015
DATE
________________________
Ms Yasmin Carrim
Ms Medi Mokuena and Prof lmraan I Valodia concurring
Tribunal Researcher: Aneesa Ravat
For the merging parties: Andries Le Grange of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc
For the Commission: Prishani Maheeph, Seema Nunkoo and Xolela Nokele
[1] The transaction was notified simultaneously as the shares in Bedworth Centre are indivisible.
[2] Inter alia merger record page 8.