Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Vusani Investments (Pty) Ltd and Immovable Properties (owned by Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd) (123/LM/Dec 05) [2006] ZACT 31 (7 April 2006)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the merger does not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in any relevant market. Vusani Investments has no prior business activities, and there is no overlap between the activities of the merging parties. The geographic spread of the properties across several provinces and Namibia indicates a lack of market concentration. Although Sanlam will retain minority protections and a form of control post-merger, this does not change the competitive landscape, as Sanlam controlled the properties prior to the transaction. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the merger was approved.

Court disposition

Merger approved without conditions.

Orders

  • The merger between Vusani Investments (Pty) Ltd and the specified immovable properties owned by Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd, Tralee Court (Pty) Ltd, and Brukkaros Investment (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Vusani Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Thabile Molokome, Cliffe Dekker

Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd

Respondent

Tralee Court (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Brukkaros Investment (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Sanlam Preference Shares Acquired: ZAR 21,924
  • Vusani Holdings Voting Rights Post Merger (%): 70
  • Sanlam Voting Rights Post Merger (%): 30

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Merger Clearance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Vusani Investments argued that the transaction is motivated by transformation objectives in the property industry, specifically to achieve appropriate BEE ownership and management of the specified immovable properties. Vusani, as a BEE company, seeks to enter the property market and views this as an opportunity to do so. The merger does not create any overlap in business activities, as Vusani Investments has not traded before and has no operating activities.
Respondent
Sanlam and its subsidiaries submitted that the transaction would not alter the competitive landscape, as Sanlam controlled the properties pre-merger and will retain minority protections post-merger. The parties confirmed that there is no overlap between their activities and those of Vusani Investments, and that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition. No public interest concerns were raised.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 1998 (as amended)

    A merger will not be prohibited unless it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition, as per section 12 of the Competition Act.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, 1998 (as amended)

    Minority protections conferred by subscription and shareholders' agreements may result in a form of control, but do not necessarily alter the competitive landscape if control existed pre-merger.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the merger does not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in any relevant market. Vusani Investments has no prior business activities, and there is no overlap between the activities of the merging parties. The geographic spread of the properties across several provinces and Namibia indicates a lack of market concentration. Although Sanlam will retain minority protections and a form of control post-merger, this does not change the competitive landscape, as Sanlam controlled the properties prior to the transaction. No public interest concerns were identified. Accordingly, the merger was approved.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the transformation process in the property industry is a legitimate rationale for the transaction, supporting BEE ownership and management.
  • The lack of overlap in business activities between the merging parties was a significant factor in the approval of the merger.

Court disposition

Merger approved without conditions.

  • The merger between Vusani Investments (Pty) Ltd and the specified immovable properties owned by Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd, Tralee Court (Pty) Ltd, and Brukkaros Investment (Pty) Ltd 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

[2006] ZACT 31

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 123/LM/Dec 05

In the large merger between:

Vusani Investments (Pty) Ltd

and

Immovable Properties owned by Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd

Reasons for Decision

________________

Approval

On 22 March 2006 the Competition Tribunal issued a merger clearance certificate approving the merger between Vusani Property Investmens (Pty) Ltd and certain immovable properties owned by one or other of Sanlam Life Insurance Limited, Tralee Court (Pty) Ltd, and Brukkaros Investment (Pty) Ltd. The reasons appear below.

The Parties

The acquiring firm is Vusani Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (”Vusani Investments”), a newly formed company that does not control any firm and has never traded before. Vusani Investments is owned by Vusani Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Vusani Holdings”), a shelf company. Vusani Holdings is owned by a number of shareholders in the following percentages:

 Vusani Properties (Pty) Ltd (61.4%)

 Mervyn Serebro Discretionary Trust (17.4%)

 Elad Discretionary Trust (17.4%)

 Mtupo Properties (Pty) Ltd (3.8%)

Some of these shareholders are subsidiaries and are controlled by other shareholders, the details of which are not significant for the purposes of this decision.1

The primary target is a number of immovable properties owned by one or other of Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (“Sanlam”), Tralee Court (Pty) Ltd (“Tralee”) and Brukkaros Investment (Pty) Ltd (“Brukkaros”). Tralee and Brukkaros are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sanlam. Sanlam is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sanlam Group Limited, which has got many other subsidiaries not relevant for the purposes of this decision.

The Merger Transaction

Vusani Investment is acquiring from Sanlam, Tralee and Brukkaros certain immovable properties2 comprising retail, office, and industrial properties and showrooms. Post merger Vusani Holdings will hold 100% of the ordinary share capital in Vusani Investments. This will give Vusani Holdings 70% voting rights in that company. Sanlam will acquire 21 924-preference shares in Vusani Investment, which will give it 30% of the voting rights.3

Sanlam will provide finance to Vusani investments to purchase the said properties, subject to the debenture subscription agreement entered into between Vusani Investments and Sanlam.4

.

Rationale for the Transaction

The parties have stated that because of the transformation process taking place in the property industry, Sanlam wants appropriate BEE ownership and management of the specified immovable properties. Vusani, which is a BEE company, wishes to participate in the property market and views this as an opportunity to do so.

The relevant markets

The relevant market can be categorised depending on the uses of the property and this includes, retail, office, and industrial properties and showrooms.

As can be seen from the table below, the geographic market is spread over seven provinces in South Africa and there are two properties located in Namibia. Thus the market is not concentrated.

PROPERTY

ESTIMATED MARKET

SHARE

REGION

TYPE Bisho Indwe House 5% Eastern Cape Office Rosettenville Shopping Centre 5% Gauteng Retail Santrio Shopping Centre, Vanderbijlpark 5% Free State Retail 158 Jan Smuts & Auto Bavaria 1% Gauteng Office and Showrooms Sanlam Building, Bloemfontein 5% Free State Office 81 Rissik Street, Johannesburg 1% Gauteng Office Atrium Terrace, Randburg 1% Gauteng Office West Gate Shopping Centre, Cape Town 5% Western Cape Retail Sanlam Forum, Witbank 5% Mpumalanga Office Odendaalsrus Shopping Centre 5% Free State Retail Eersterus Plaza, Pretoria 1% Gauteng Retail Market Square, King Williams Town 5% Eastern Cape Retail Metcash, Wynberg 5% Western Cape Retail Metcash, Vryheid 5% Free State Retail SARS, Durban 5% Kwazulu Natal Office Damelin College, Braamfontein 5% Gauteng Office Metcash, George 5% Eastern Cape Industrial Metcash, Ermelo 5% Mpumalanga Industrial Metcash, Kimberly 2% Northern Cape Industrial Metcash, Tsumeb 2% Namibia Industrial Metcash, Walvis Bay 5% Namibia Industrial

Vusani Investments has not traded before and has no business or operating activities. There is no overlap between the activities of Vusani Investments and its holding companies, on the one hand, and Sanlam, Tralees and Brukkaros, on the other. Thus the merger does not lead to a substantial lessening or prevention of competition.

Post merger Sanlam will have a form of control of Vusani Investments mentioned in section 12 of the Competition Act, 1998 (as amended) as a result of the minority protections conferred upon Sanlam by the subscription and shareholders’ agreements. However, this does not result in any change in the competitive landscape because Sanlam controlled the properties pre-merger. In relation to Vusani Investments there will be a change in control, the sense section 12 of the Act, as a result of the merger.

Public Interest

There are no public interest concerns.

Conclusion

We conclude that the merger will not lead to a substantial lessening or prevention of competition. There are no public interest concerns, which may alter this conclusion.

07 April 2006

Y Carrim Date

Concurring: M Moerane and L Reyburn

For the merging parties: Thabile Molokome, Cliffe Dekker

For the Commission: Seema Nunkoo and Mogalane Matsimela, Mergers and Acquisitions

1 Further details pertaining to these cross-ownerships can be obtained from page 3 of the record

2 Details of the properties can be found on page(s) 4, 43-45 of the record and on the table below. However, at the hearing the parties stated that two of the properties namely Metcash Thlabane and Metcash Thaba Nchu have fallen out of the transaction. (See page 2 of the Transcript for further details).

3 See page 528 of the record for further details.

4 Further details can be found on page 16 and 517-651 of the record.

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, 1998 (as amended)

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.