You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Competition Tribunal >>
2004 >>
[2004] ZACT 37
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Help]
ABSA Bank Limited and Avena Leaseplan South Africa (Pty) Limited (10/LM/Feb04) [2004] ZACT 37 (27 May 2004)
.RTF of original document
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: 10/LM/Feb04
In the large merger between:
ABSA Bank Limited
and
Avena Leaseplan South Africa (Pty) Limited
Reasons for Decision
Approval
1. On 19 May 2004 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate
approving unconditionally the transaction between the abovementioned parties. The
reasons for the Tribunal’s decision follows.
The Parties
2. The primary acquiring firm is ABSA Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of ABSA Group Ltd (“ABSA Group”). ABSA Group has
in excess of 20 subsidiaries out of which only ABSA Fleet Services Limited (“AFS”) is relevant for purposes of this transaction.
3. AFS has a 50% share in Fleet Support Services (Pty) Ltd (“FSS”). FFS is a joint venture company between AFS and Imperial
Fleet Services (Pty) Ltd (“Imperial”) with each entity holding a 50% share.
4. The primary target firm is Avena Leaseplan South Africa (“Avena”), which controls Lease Plan Fleet Management South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“LPSA”). Avena is controlled by LeasePlan Corporation
N.V. (“LPNV”), a Netherlands incorporated company, which is in turn controlled by ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (“ABN”).
The Transaction
5. The proposed transaction involves ABSA Bank acquiring 100% of Avena from LPNV. This will result in Avena becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of ABSA Bank.
Rationale for the Transaction
6. ABSA’s rationale for the deal is that it will result in material cost savings and will give it access to LPSA’s experience
and trade record in managing manufacturer’
maintenance plans. ABSA further says that the deal will therefore place it in a good
position to win further such contracts.
7. LPSA claims that the deal will give it more flexibility to expand within the local market particularly in government fleets. The merging parties state that when LPNV acquired LPSA from Investec Bank in 1998 LPNV anticipated that its presence in South Africa
would be a key to ensure future delivery of global solutions to its multi-national consumers. However, the demand, which LPNV anticipated,
did not materialise. As a result their local presence is no longer considered to be a strategic requirement.
The parties’ activities
8. ABSA Group is active in the broader banking, insurance, financial and property sectors.
9. AFS (ABSA’s subsidiary company) provides vehicle leasing and fleet management services in passenger, light commercial vehicles,
buses and trucks.
10. FSS is a joint venture company between AFS and Imperial. It provides a complete outsourced solution of asset administration. Its services
include vehicle procurement, vendor payment, cash management, maintenance authorisation and invoice vetting, technical inspections
for major mechanical repairs and related aspects.
As indicated earlier, the parties will post merger exit this joint venture.
11. Avena is an investment company which does not conduct business operations. Its subsidiary, LPSA, is involved in vehicle leasing and fleet management in passenger and light commercial vehicles but not in trucks or buses. It also
provides maintenance plans for manufacturers.
Overlap of activities
12. The parties indicated at the hearing that FSS does not provide the same service/s as AFS hence FSS does not operate in the same
market. FSS we were advised provides back office services. The overlap in activities between the merging parties is thus limited to the activities
of AFS.
The relevant product and geographic markets
13. In light of the above information, both the Commission and the parties define the relevant product market as the market for vehicle
leasing and fleet management for passenger and light commercial vehicles.
14. It appears further that the merging parties conduct their businesses nationally. The Commission asserts that competition in the
relevant market takes place nationally with their competitors having a national presence. The merging parties submit that their customers are big sophisticated corporate clients, which have the capacity to source the services
from any service provider throughout South Africa.
15. The Commission therefore concluded that the relevant geographic market is national.
Competition analysis
Vertical integration
16. ABSA provides finance not only to AFS and post merger to LPSA, but at present also finances Imperial, Avis, Debis and Super Group
(which are of course the merged entities’ competitors). The parties were emphatic at the hearing that ABSA will continue to
do so post-merger. When asked whether this could give rise to concerns of either possible foreclosure or information sharing with rivals we were assured
the transaction could not be used to do this. In relation to the possibility of foreclosure ABSA pointed out that these firms are
financed by several banks and ABSA is not their only source for funds. Secondly loans are provided to the groups as a whole and are
not confined to the leasing activities specifically so that the banks do not receive information in return that would assist them
to strategically assess rivals businesses.
17. For this reason the vertical relationship does not seem to raise any competition concerns.
Market shares
18. Both the Commission and the parties have indicated the estimated market shares for vehicle leasing and fleet management on a national
basis as follows.
Avis - 22%; Imperial – 17%; Stannic – 15%; Debis – 14%; LPSA – 10%; AFS – 6%; Viamax (Transnet) – 6%; CLM (Unitrans) – 4%; Super Group – 4%; and Nedbank – 2%.
19. From the above, it is apparent that the merging firms will have a combined estimated market share of 16% post merger which the Commission indicates is slightly higher than its benchmark of 15%. And hence is an indication that concentration in this market is moderate.
20. The Commission further contends that the merged entity will still face competition from significant players such as Avis (22%),
Imperial (17%), Stannic (15%) and from other players active in this market. It further indicated that the merging parties’
customer’s apprehension of this transaction is that no negative effect on their business is likely to result from this merger. As a result, the Commission concluded that it does not foresee any possibility of the merged entity being able to exercise any market
power post-merger.
Public interest issues
21. The transaction does not raise substantial public interest concerns except for the anticipated twenty job losses resulting from
the AFS exiting the joint venture company with FFS. It is the Commission’s submission that such anticipated retrenchment of 20 employees does not justify conditional approval
or prohibition of this transaction.
Conclusion
22. The transaction raises neither competition nor public interest concerns and is approved unconditionally.
______________ 27 May 2004
Dave Lewis Date
Concurring: Norman Manoim and Thandi Orleyn
For the merging parties:
Tsakani Mhlanga & Jean Meijer (Cliffe Dekker Inc.)
For the Commission:
Mark Worsley (Legal Services) assisted by Makgale Mohlala (Mergers & Acquisitions)
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2004/37.html
