|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2011 |
|
|
The Tribunal approved a private equity acquisition finding no overlap, no vertical link, and no competition or public interest concerns.
Merger review — private equity acquisition — no horizontal overlap — no vertical relationship — no substantial lessening of competition — no public interest concerns — unconditional approval.
|
8 February 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved a minority private equity investment finding no competition or public interest concerns.
Competition law – Merger – Private equity minority acquisition – No horizontal overlap – No vertical relationship – No public interest concerns – Unconditional approval.
|
8 February 2011 |
|
Tribunal condones amended self-referral, dismisses exceptions to Commission’s abuse‑of‑dominance referral, reserving substantive issues for trial.
Competition law – procedure – exceptions to complaint referrals – condonation of late self-referral amendment; Competition law – abuse of dominance – excessive pricing (s8(a)), constructive refusal/essential facility (s8(b)), margin squeeze/exclusionary conduct (s8(c)), bundling (s8(d)(iii)) – sufficiency of pleading; Pleading and procedure – when statutory interpretation and constitutional challenges should be decided (reserved for full hearing); Splitting of charges – same facts can support multiple contraventions; Remedies – competence and appropriateness not to be determined on exception.
|
4 February 2011 |
| January 2011 |
|
|
Tribunal ordered limited access to a specified confidential discovery document for respondent’s counsel and expert, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
* Competition law – discovery – access to confidential documents – limited disclosure to respondent's legal representatives and expert witness subject to confidentiality undertakings.
* Procedure – confidentiality undertakings as condition for access to sensitive discovery material.
|
31 January 2011 |
| December 2010 |
|
|
Reported
Acquisition of pension‑backed loan book approved after collaboration agreement amended; no competition or public interest concerns.
Competition — merger control — acquisition of pension‑backed loan book; market definition for PBLs (external providers v. broader unsecured lending); potential foreclosure via collaboration agreement; behavioural amendment; public interest (employment) — approval unconditionally.
|
23 December 2010 |
|
Reported
A non‑binding indicative offer may, together with supporting facts, constitute a proposed merger requiring reconsideration.
Merger law – proposed merger – whether an indicative non‑binding offer can constitute a proposed merger – intent to control is necessary but insufficient; cumulative 'intent plus' factors relevant – Commission’s Rule 28 discretion to permit separate filing – review and remittal.
|
14 December 2010 |
|
Reported
Merger would substantially lessen competition in the deodorant market; approved subject to divestiture and employment safeguards.
Competition law — merger control — product market definition in differentiated FMCG categories — deodorants market — unilateral effects from removal of a close competitor — divestiture remedy and trustee monitoring — public interest: employment cap and retraining obligations.
|
7 December 2010 |
|
Reported
A vertical acquisition of a small broker by an insurer was approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
* Competition law – Merger control – Vertical acquisition of a broker by an insurer – Assessment of upstream (insurance), downstream (broking) and administration markets. * Market shares – insurer ~19.7% (non-dominant); broker ~3% (insignificant). * Information exchange – potential confidentiality risks assessed as unlikely; industry safeguards adequate. * Prior unnotified control – issue noted but left to Commission to investigate. * No public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
2 December 2010 |
| November 2010 |
|
|
Tribunal confirms consent settlement where respondent admits price-fixing, information exchange and exclusionary conduct, pays R500m and accepts remedies.
Competition law – price-fixing (s 4(1)(b)(i)) – information exchange through trade associations – exclusionary conduct (s 8(c)) – consent settlement confirmed by Tribunal – remedies: R500m administrative penalty, behavioural commitments (compliance, cooperation, pricing), capital expenditure commitments.
|
30 November 2010 |
|
The Tribunal dismissed the Commission's cartel claims against the respondent for lack of evidence that the firm's agent bound or implemented cartel arrangements.
Competition law – Section 4(1)(b) per se prohibitions – price fixing, market division and collusive tendering; Agency and attribution – whether conduct of salesman/agent at cartel meetings can be imputed to firm; 'Unified economic consciousness' doctrine – rejected as necessary for liability; Evidentiary sufficiency – need for authority or implementation, and limits of out-of-court statements when witness unavailable.
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal finds respondents guilty of a long‑running cartel and imposes hefty penalties, applying duration and gravity under section 59.
Competition law – Cartel (section 4(1)(b)) – price-fixing, market/product allocation, bid-rigging – Penalty under section 59 – total v. affected turnover; role of duration, gravity and extent; arithmetic (EU/UK/US) vs discretionary approaches – treatment of pass-through receipts and project-related turnover – concealment and fictitious invoices as aggravating conduct.
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved a small horizontal/vertical poultry merger, finding no substantial lessening of competition.
Merger control — horizontal market share assessment in frozen poultry; vertical foreclosure risks from broiler rearing and feed supply; impact of concurrent cartel investigation; public interest (employment) considerations.
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Acquisition of local cash-and-carry approved: insignificant horizontal overlap and no vertical foreclosure or public interest concerns.
Competition — Merger review — Local retail and wholesale grocery markets — Horizontal overlap insignificant — Limited vertical purchases — No foreclosure — No public interest concerns — Unconditional approval.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Acquisition of an institutional stockbroker by a banking group unlikely to substantially lessen competition; approved unconditionally.
Competition — Merger control — Institutional stock brokerage market — Assessment of market definition, horizontal overlaps and market shares — No substantial lessening of competition; no public interest concerns — Unconditional approval.
|
24 November 2010 |
|
An acquiring wholesaler’s purchase of retail supermarkets approved unconditionally as unlikely to lessen competition.
Merger control – acquisition of retail outlets by a wholesaler – no horizontal overlap; vertical relationship without foreclosure risk; third-party litigation and employment undertaking do not preclude approval.
|
22 November 2010 |
|
An acquisition was unconditionally approved as unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and raised no public interest concerns.
Competition law – merger approval – horizontal overlap in supply of self-operating regulators; product market delineation not determinative; different customer segments reduce direct overlap; negligible vertical integration; no public interest/employment concerns – unconditional approval.
|
17 November 2010 |
|
Acquisition of a majority stake in a local cash‑and‑carry approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition given effective competitors.
* Merger control – acquisition of majority stake in local cash‑and‑carry – horizontal overlap in wholesale grocery trade to LSM 2–6 in Gauteng – presence of effective competitors; * Vertical relationship – ad hoc purchases by target from acquirer – insufficient to raise foreclosure concerns; * Public interest – no adverse effects identified; * Result: unconditional approval.
|
17 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal orders the Commission to provide particulars (except question 15), permitting qualified yes/no answers, by 30 November 2010.
Civil procedure – Request for particulars – Tribunal orders disclosure of particulars except for one question – Answers to be yes/no where possible but may be qualified or clarified – Deadline imposed for provision of particulars.
|
17 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal ordered merits and primary reliefs heard before relief against third‑party inventory providers, with conditional rule nisi if respondent loses.
* Competition law – procedural — joinder and sequencing of reliefs – whether to determine merits and primary reliefs before relief affecting third‑party inventory providers containing exclusivity clauses; issuance of rule nisi to affected third parties.
|
16 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal approved creation of a retail property joint venture, finding no geographic overlap or substantial lessening of competition.
Merger control – relevant market: holding and management of rentable retail properties; geographic market delineation; non-transportability of rental space; no substantial lessening of competition; no significant public interest concerns.
|
10 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal allowed Rule 45 substitution of the correct corporate respondent and ordered amendment of affidavits.
* Civil procedure – Competition Tribunal – Rule 45 – Substitution of parties – Correction of respondent’s name and amendment of pleadings/affidavits.
|
10 November 2010 |
|
Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement for failure to notify an intermediate merger and imposed administrative penalties.
Competition law – merger notification – implementation of a notifiable intermediate merger prior to notification and approval – contravention of section 13A(3) – administrative penalties agreed in consent agreement – Tribunal confirmation of consent order.
|
10 November 2010 |
|
Acquisition approved unconditionally; vertical supplier relationship and market shares insufficient to lessen competition.
Competition law – merger approval – vertical relationship between acquirer and target – supplier sales to acquirer under 10% of target revenue – market with sufficient effective competitors – no substantive competition or public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
9 November 2010 |
|
Acquisition of A‑grade office share in Constantia Kloof Basin poses no anti‑competitive risk; transaction approved unconditionally.
Merger control – property sector – acquisition of A‑grade office sectional title share – geographic market: Constantia Kloof Basin – no horizontal overlap – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest concerns – unconditional approval.
|
3 November 2010 |
| October 2010 |
|
|
Reported
Merger in merchandising services approved unconditionally: low combined share and distinct markets mean no substantial lessening of competition.
Merger control — merchandising and sales services — distinction between merchandising and logistics — market definition (product and geographic) — combined market share low (≈12%) — no substantial lessening of competition — unconditional approval.
|
29 October 2010 |
|
The applicant’s acquisition of a global aircraft lessor posed no substantial competition or public interest concerns and was approved.
Competition — Merger approval — Acquisition of control of aircraft operating lessor — No product or geographic overlap in South Africa — No substantial lessening of competition — No significant public interest issues.
|
29 October 2010 |
|
Merger approved conditionally: no substantial competition harm found, but a two‑year moratorium on merger‑related retrenchments imposed due to employment concerns.
• Competition — large merger in financial services — long-term insurance, medical scheme products/administration, retirement fund administration, asset management, property — no substantial lessening of competition.
• Public interest — employment — prima facie substantial retrenchments (≈1 000) — evidential burden shifts to merging parties to justify job losses.
• Remedies — proposed undertakings inadequate; Tribunal imposed two-year moratorium on merger-related retrenchments (excluding specified senior management).
• Variation — Tribunal corrected senior-management reference (204 employees) but refused to allow amendment to permit voluntary separations or dismissals for refusal of redeployment.
|
14 October 2010 |
|
Acquisition approved: no overlap, no competition or public interest concerns, so unconditional approval granted.
* Competition law – merger approval – assessment of overlap and substitutability – no horizontal or vertical overlap found
* Public interest – employment effects – no job losses; no other public interest concerns
* Remedy – no conditions required where no substantial lessening of competition is established
|
8 October 2010 |
| September 2010 |
|
|
Tribunal approved a three-part property and asset-management acquisition, finding no competitive or public interest concerns.
Competition — Merger approval — Horizontal and vertical assessment — Minor regional shopping-centre acquisition; asset-management business acquisition — Target’s asset-management market share <5% — No likely foreclosure or substantial lessening of competition — No public interest concerns (no retrenchments).
|
29 September 2010 |
|
Acquiring firm's purchase of 50% share in a regional shopping centre approved; no substantial competition or public interest concerns.
Mergers — property sector — acquisition of 50% interest in shopping centre; market definition: community centre vs minor regional centre vs rentable retail space in node; low post-merger market share (<15%); public interest — employment retention; approval without conditions.
|
29 September 2010 |
|
Acquisition of concession-holding firm poses no competition or public interest concerns; merger approved unconditionally.
Competition law — Merger review — Toll-road concessions — Competition "for" the market (concession tender) vs competition "in" the market (road access) — Equity providers in consortiums replaceable — No substantial lessening of competition — No public interest concerns.
|
13 September 2010 |
|
An integrated refiner’s acquisition of a small downstream distributor was approved as unlikely to lessen competition.
Merger control – market definition (upstream refining and downstream wholesale/retail) – horizontal overlap minimal – vertical integration – input/customer foreclosure unlikely – market share accretion low – public interest (minor retrenchments; BEE transaction) – unconditional approval.
|
8 September 2010 |
|
Reported
Tribunal held leniency materials privileged and allowed only limited discovery of documents expressly referenced in the referral.
Competition law – discovery – Commission Rules 14 and 15 – restricted information – PAIA s37(1)(b) – corporate leniency policy – leniency applications and related materials produced in contemplation of litigation attract litigation privilege – Rule 35 limited discovery only for documents relied on in pleadings – waiver of privilege not lightly inferred.
|
3 September 2010 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved preference-share financing of a BEE vehicle, finding no competition or public interest concerns.
Mergers — financing of BEE transaction via preference shares — special-purpose vehicle holding minority mining interest — no horizontal overlap — no substantial lessening of competition — no public interest concerns (employment).
|
1 September 2010 |
| August 2010 |
|
|
Acquirer’s move to sole control of a joint‑venture dealership unlikely to lessen competition; approved unconditionally.
Mergers – retail motor vehicle dealerships – competition assessment based on market shares and localised rivalry; pre‑merger material control; public interest (employment) – unconditional approval.
|
25 August 2010 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved the applicant’s acquisition, finding minimal market share and no public interest concerns.
Merger control – road transportation of bulk materials – market delineation – assessment of post‑merger market shares in national and vehicle‑type submarkets – substantial lessening of competition test – public interest (employment) considerations.
|
25 August 2010 |
|
Tribunal ordered targeted production of margin/volume and supplier‑contract documents, refused invasive operational and financial records and appointment of an auditor.
Competition law – price discrimination (s9(1)) – relevance and equivalence – probative value versus business privacy and burden – refusal to order intrusive operational and strategic documents – refusal to appoint independent auditor – on‑site inspection of confidential third‑party contracts with confidentiality undertakings.
|
20 August 2010 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved a financial‑services merger due to low market shares and limited public interest concerns.
Merger control – financial services – overlaps in stockbroking, short‑term insurance broking, asset/investment management and corporate finance – post‑merger market shares below 15% – presence of significant competitors – limited retrenchments and employee consultation – unconditional approval.
|
19 August 2010 |
|
Acquisition of a packaging business approved; excess capacity, substitution and buyer power negated competition concerns.
Competition law – merger control – acquisition of paper-packaging business – horizontal overlap in packaging manufacture; vertical distribution dimension (serviettes) – market delineation unnecessary where no substantial lessening of competition on any plausible definition – mitigating factors: excess industry capacity, substitution to other packaging materials, imports and buyer countervailing power – public interest: no job losses.
|
12 August 2010 |
| July 2010 |
|
|
Reported
Amendment allowed: conduct in original complaint was rationally linked to section 8(d)(i), so Tribunal had jurisdiction and a cause of action was disclosed.
Competition law – amendments to direct complaint referrals – scope of section 51(1) referrals after Commission non‑referral – conduct need only be cognisably linked to prohibitions in the Act – distinction and interplay between section 8(c) and section 8(d)(i) (exclusive agreements; requiring/inducing supplier not to deal with competitor) – permissive approach to amendments where no prejudice shown.
|
29 July 2010 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved a 24‑property acquisition; overlaps small and employment concerns mitigated.
Competition law – merger control – property portfolio acquisition – overlaps in light industrial and B‑grade office markets – low combined market shares – remaining effective competition – public interest: employment undertaking mitigates potential retrenchments – unconditional approval.
|
29 July 2010 |
|
Vertical acquisition of hardwood plantations conditionally approved after supply contracts and expert price-setting remedied foreclosure and coordination risks.
* Competition — Vertical merger — acquisition of hardwood plantations by a downstream mining-support firm — potential input foreclosure and coordination concerns. * Remedies — behavioural: contractual supply obligations and independent expert price determination with confidentiality undertakings. * Public interest — BEE supplier access and employment preserved via supply contract and s197 transfer.
|
21 July 2010 |
|
A low post‑merger market share in Sandton meant the acquisition was unlikely to substantially lessen competition and was approved.
Merger control — rentable A‑grade office space (Sandton) — assessment of substantial lessening of competition — low combined market share — no public interest concerns; unconditional approval.
|
21 July 2010 |
|
The acquiring firm's purchase of the respondent's office park was approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
* Competition law – merger control – horizontal overlap in rentable grade “A” office space in Bellville (including Parow) – combined post‑merger market share ~9% – no substantial lessening of competition.* Competition law – vertical relationship in asset/property management – combined share ~7% – unlikely to cause foreclosure.* Corporate governance – cross‑directorships – proposed resignations and recusal mitigate conflict risks.* Public interest – no significant concerns; unconditional approval.
|
15 July 2010 |
|
Acquisition of an asset manager with low combined market share and minor vertical links was unconditionally approved as unlikely to harm competition.
Competition — Merger control — Acquisition of asset manager — Horizontal overlap in asset management services (national market) — Low combined market share (~7%) — Vertical link to property ownership (~4%) — No foreclosure likely — No significant public interest issues — Merger approved unconditionally.
|
15 July 2010 |
|
Acquirer’s takeover of target unlikely to substantially lessen competition; merger approved unconditionally.
Merger control — horizontal overlaps in local office and retail property markets — geographic nodal market definition — vertical effects in national asset-management market — market shares and competitive constraint — unconditional approval.
|
15 July 2010 |
|
Tribunal confirmed consent order where the respondent admitted price‑fixing of non‑ferrous scrap and agreed to pay R12.77m.
Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – price‑fixing – non‑ferrous scrap; agreement to fix buying/pricing levels and formation of joint venture (Greystone); consent agreement under section 49D and section 58(1)(b); administrative penalty and behavioural remedies (compliance programme, cooperation); full and final settlement of specified complaints.
|
14 July 2010 |
|
Reported
The respondent admitted price‑fixing in non‑ferrous scrap; tribunal confirmed a consent order imposing a R12.77m penalty.
Competition law – cartel conduct – price‑fixing (s 4(1)(b)(i)) – non‑ferrous scrap sector – consent agreement – admission of liability – administrative penalty – compliance programme – cooperation with enforcement investigations.
|
14 July 2010 |
|
Unconditional approval of a joint-to-sole control IT distribution merger due to negligible market share accretion and no competition harm.
Competition — Merger — Joint-to-sole control in IT wholesale distribution; horizontal overlap (desktop, laptop, networking) with negligible market share accretion; buyer countervailing power; vendor-agency access a structural, not merger-induced, barrier; unconditional approval.
|
14 July 2010 |
|
Reported
Applicant's challenge to Commissioner's summons for vagueness and improper interrogatories dismissed.
Competition law – Section 49A summons – interrogatories versus document requests; Predatory/excessive pricing investigations – relevance of cross‑market price, cost and circulation comparisons; Overbreadth and vagueness challenges to investigatory summons – geographic and temporal scope; Disaggregated publication‑level financial data – relevance to market definition and recoupment analysis.
|
8 July 2010 |
