Parties
1.
The acquiring firm is Nedbank Limited. Pursuant to the referral of this transaction to the
Tribunal, the banking business of BoE, including BoE Bank Limited was transferred to Nedbank Limited (formerly Nedcor Bank Limited).
In terms of this transaction and in light of section 54 of the Banks Act, all of the assets and liabilities of BoE Bank were transferred
to Nedbank Limited. Accordingly, Nedbank Limited has now acquired the same rights and obligations of BoE Bank.
2.
The target firm is Fasic Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Fasic”) a diversified consumer goods
holding company. One of its subsidiaries is the Lion Match Company, the primary manufacturer of safety matches in RSA. It also has
a 50% (minus 1) share of Kimberly-Clark Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, (a leading manufacturer of tissue, personal care, and health products).
It owns 100% of National Shaving Products (Pty) Ltd.
3.
Prior to the merger, Fasic is controlled by Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa
(“IDC”) as to 55%; BoE as to 27% and Fasic Investment Corporation (“FIC”) as to 18%.
IDC
BoE
FIC
55%
18%
27%
Fasic Africa
The Merger Transaction
4.
The transaction comprises a disposal of IDC’s 55% interest in Fasic. BoE (Corporate),
which already owns 27% of Fasic, is acquiring this interest in pursuance of its pre-emptive rights to acquire such shares. The acquisition
will thus give it a majority shareholding in the company in that it will hold 82% of the entire issued share capital of Fasic.
Background
5.
Just prior to the hearing before us, there were two applications to intervene based on similar
grounds by FIC (Fasic Investment Corporation Limited) and Steephill Trading (Pty) Ltd (“Steephill”). FIC claimed that
it had a pre-emptive right to acquire the IDC's shareholding in Fasic but was prevented from exercising such right. Steephill claimed
that in terms of a prior agreement with the IDC, it is entitled to the shares, in default of FIC exercising its option. Both firms
also alleged that insofar as they represent previously disadvantaged groups, the sale to BOEas opposed to them, might have an adverse
affect on empowerment. They maintained the merger should either be prohibited or postponed pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings between the parties
6.
At a hearing on 15th January 2003, we allowed the intervening parties to intervene and set dates for the filing of certain documents. A revised timetable was agreed to wherein certain additional information was to be made available to the intervenors by a certain
date. They were also given an opportunity to file a statement of issues. A further pre-hearing was convened for early March 2003.
7.
During the course of March, we were notified that the parties were attempting to settle the
dispute. In October 2003 we were notified that the parties had reached agreement. On 11 November 2003 Steephill Trading notified that it was withdrawing its objection to the first merger.
Rationale for the Transaction
8.
The IDC wished to realise its investment in Fasic.
The Relevant Market
9.
Nedbank is involved in corporate and retail banking, including provision of various financial
services, such as investment advice, corporate finance, mortgage loans and client facilitation and proprietary trading.
10.
Fasic is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of safety matches, shaving product; the distribution
of imported disposable lighters. Furthermore, it manufactures tissues and health products through its interest in Kimberly Clark
Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Impact on competition
11.
There is no product overlap whatsoever, neither between the merging parties nor any of their subsidiaries
or associated companies. There is accordingly no impact on competition. Although Old Mutual, which is the largest shareholder in
Nedcor, holds a large investment in Nampak, which is a competitor of Kimberley Clark, there is no evidence that it is able to exercise
control over that company as a result of that stake.
We accordingly conclude that this merger will not lead to a substantial lessening of competition. There are no public interest concerns which would alter this conclusion. The merger is therefore approved unconditionally.
_____________
20 January 2004
N. Manoim
Date
Concurring: L. Reyburn, T. Orleyn
For the merging parties:
M. Brassey instructed by Edward Nathan Friedland
For the Commission:
K. Ramathula, Competition Commission
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2004/3.html
.RTF of original document