Glaxo Wellcome Plc and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa [2000] ZACT 33 (28 July 2000)

62 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition Law — Merger Control — Approval of merger subject to conditions — Glaxo Wellcome plc and SmithKline Beecham plc sought approval for an international merger, initially prohibited by the Competition Commission due to high market shares in specific therapeutic categories — Merging parties agreed to out-license certain products to mitigate competition concerns — Tribunal approved the merger with conditions reflecting the parties' undertakings to out-license products in identified therapeutic categories, ensuring no increase in market share in those areas.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case Number: 58/AM/May00
In the matter between 
GLAXO WELLCOME plc First Applicant
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM plc Second Applicant
And 
THE COMPETITION COMMISSION Respondent
REASONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
_____________________________________________________________________
Approval
1. On   28   July   2000   the   Competition   Tribunal   issued   an   order   approving   the  
intermediate merger between Glaxo Wellcome plc and Smithkline Beecham  
plc   with   conditions.   The   conditions   for   the   approval   of   the   merger   appear  
below. 
2. The Commission had prohibited the merger because it was concerned that the  
merger would result in the merging parties having high market shares in two  
therapeutic categories. The merging parties agreed to out license products in  
each of the therapeutic categories identified by the Commission in order to  
lessen   the   competition   concerns   of   the   Commission.   Consequently   the  
Commission and the merging parties brought to us a consent order reflecting  
their agreement.
3. During the hearing we expressed concern that the merger was likely to lessen  
or prevent competition in another (third) therapeutic category. The merging  
parties agreed to out license one of the drugs in this category as well. 
4. The   above   undertakings   by   the   merging   parties   addressed   our   competition  
concerns as well as those of the Commission. The conditions we have set for  
the   approval   of   the   merger   reflect   the   undertakings   made   by   the   merging  
parties in the consent order submitted to us prior to and during the hearing.  
1

The merger transaction
5. This is an international merger of equals between Glaxo Wellcome plc and  
SmithKline Beecham plc. This merger is to be effected by way of a scheme of  
arrangement in terms of section 245 of the United Kingdom Companies Act of  
1985.   The   two   merging   firms   are   registered   in   England   and   Wales   with  
subsidiaries operating around the world.
6. In terms of the merger  agreement  both firms would be acquired by a new  
company called Glaxo SmithKline plc. 
7. The European Commission conditionally approved this merger in May 2000;  
our decision is largely based on the decision of the European Commission.
Evaluating the merger
8. SmithKline   Beecham   is   mainly   involved   in   the   research,   development,  
manufacture   and   marketing   of   pharmaceuticals,   vaccines,   over­the­counter  
medicines and health products. In terms of the information the parties have  
provided   to   us   about   32   per   cent   of   SmithKline   Beecham’s   international  
turnover derives from non­pharmaceutical activities.
9. Glaxo Wellcome’s business is in the research, development, manufacture and  
marketing of pharmaceutical products. In terms of the information supplied to  
us by the parties Glaxo Wellcome does virtually no other business outside of  
pharmaceuticals products.
10. Since both parties are involved in the research, development, manufacture and  
marketing of pharmaceutical products, the merger will result in overlaps in a  
number of therapeutic categories for human pharmaceuticals.  
The relevant products market
11. The   relevant   product   market   is   the   market   for   the   research,   development,  
manufacture and marketing of specific categories of pharmaceutical products.  
As   a   general   rule   of   thumb   we   define   this   market   by   reference   to   the  
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) level 3 devised by the  
European   Pharmaceutical   Marketing   Research   Association.   This   is   the

European   Pharmaceutical   Marketing   Research   Association.   This   is   the  
classification   commonly   used   by   competition   authorities   around   the   world,  
especially the European Commission, in defining markets for pharmaceutical  
products.   The   ATC   classification   is   a   hierarchical   classification   with   16  
categories. Each category has four levels, the first level is the most general and  
the fourth level is the most specific. In the third level (ATC 3) products are  
classified   into   therapeutic   categories   in   terms   of   their   intended   use.   Each  
therapeutic category constitutes a market. 1
1  This technique is not always foolproof as certain products within the same ATC3 category are not  
always substitutes for one another, i.e., the market could be construed more narrowly than ATC3.  
Conversely, a product may also compete with a product in another ATC3 category. For purposes of this  
2

The relevant geographic market
12. This   is   a   merger   between   multinational   pharmaceutical   companies   whose  
subsidiaries manufacture and supply their products worldwide.  The approach  
of the European Commission is that the geographic market for pharmaceutical  
products   is   national   in   scope;   this   is   the   approach   they   followed   in   their  
definition of the relevant geographic market when this merger came before  
them.  The  European  Commission’s view  is that  the  sale of pharmaceutical  
products is influenced by the administrative procedures or purchasing policies  
in force in each Member State. Prices of products are directly or indirectly  
influenced   by   the   State   in   some   countries,   the   prices   for   products   may  
therefore   differ   from   one   Member   State   to   another.   Brand   and   pack­size  
strategies and distribution systems also differ between Member States. 
13. The same considerations apply to the South African market. In any event this  
observation   is   common   cause   between   the   Commission   and   the   merging  
parties and requires no further consideration. 
Impact on competition
14. As appears below the combined market share of the merging parties’ products  
will be very high post­merger in three therapeutic categories.  The therapeutic  
categories in question are anti­virals (excluding anti­HIV) (J5B), topical anti­
biotics (D6A) and anti­emetics (A4A). The new company would hold market  
shares   of   85,6   percent,   65,3   percent   and   38,2   percent   in   these   markets,  
respectively.   Table 1 below shows the market share of the merging parties  
before and after the merger in these therapeutic categories:
ANTIVIRALS 
(EXCLUDING 
HIV) (J5B)
TOPICAL 
ANTIBIOTICS
(D6A)
ANTI­
EMETICS 
(A4A)
SMITHKLINE 
BEECHAM’S 
SHARE
Famciclovir 17,5% Bactroban    55% Granisteron 
(“Kytril”)   5,2%  
GLAXO 
WELLCOME’S 
SHARE
Zelitrex       40,2%
Zovirax       27,8%
Polysporin  5%
Cicatrin       4,3%
Neosporin   0,5%

Zelitrex       40,2%
Zovirax       27,8%
Polysporin  5%
Cicatrin       4,3%
Neosporin   0,5%
Zofran       22,4%
Valoid       10,6%
POST­MERGER
MARKET 
SHARE
                   85,6%                   65,3
%
                  38,2%
Table 1.
15. For   this  reason,   the   merging   parties   have   voluntarily   agreed   to   out   license  
decision it has not been necessary for us to consider this issue.
3

products in each category to lessen the competition concerns of the Tribunal  
and   the   Commission.   In   terms   of  this   agreement   SmithKline   Beecham   has  
undertaken to out license Granisteron (trade name Kytril), in the anti­emetics  
category   and   Famciclovir   in   the   anti­virals   category;   Glaxo   Wellcome   has  
undertaken to out license Polysporin, Cicatrin  and Neosporin in the topical  
antibiotics category. 
16. Incidentally,   the   European   Commission   also   found   that   the   merger   would  
negatively affect competition in the same areas that we have identified and  
approved the merger subject to the parties out licensing some of the products  
in the identified areas to reduce their market share post­merger.
17. The undertaking by the parties to out license some of their products means that  
in   those   therapeutic   categories   where   the   merger   would   otherwise   raise  
competition concerns the merged entity will inherit the market share of one of  
the merging firms only. That way the merger does not increase the merging  
parties’ market share in those therapeutic categories. 
18. We therefore approve this merger on condition that the merging parties will  
out license products in the identified therapeutic categories as follows:
ANTI­EMETICS (A4A)
Granisetron   ­   a   pharmaceutical   product   manufactured   by   or   for  
SmithKline   Beecham   for   anti­emetic   use   in   the   Republic   of   South  
Africa under the brand name Kytril.
TOPICAL ANTI­BIOTICS (D6A)
Polysporin ­ a pharmaceutical product manufactured by or for Glaxo  
Wellcome in topical ointment form and sold in the Republic of South  
Africa  for use  in the  treatment  of superficial  skin lesions and  other  
infected wounds and burns.
Cicatrin   ­   a   pharmaceutical   product   manufactured   by   or   for   Glaxo  
Wellcome in powder and ointment form sold in the Republic of South  
Africa   for   use   in   the   prevention   of   superficial   infections   in   minor

Africa   for   use   in   the   prevention   of   superficial   infections   in   minor  
abrasions, burns and cuts.
Neosporin ­   a pharmaceutical product manufactured by or for Glaxo  
Wellcome in topical ointment form and sold in the Republic of South  
Africa   for   use   in   the   treatment   and   prevention   of   infected   wounds,  
burns or skin grafts.
ANTI­VIRALS (EXCLUDING ANTI­HIV)   (J5B)
Famciclovir   ­   a   pharmaceutical   product   manufactured   by   or   for  
4

SmithKline Beecham in oral form and sold in the Republic of South  
Africa   for   use   in   treatment   of   genital   herpes   and   herpes   zoster  
infections under the brand name Famvir.
19. Drafts of the terms of these license conditions which meet our approval are  
attached to this decision as Appendixes “A”, “B” and “C”.
Public interest considerations
20. On the day of the hearing we received a submission regarding the merger from  
the Aids Law Project which acts as the legal representatives of the Treatment  
Action Campaign (TAC). The TAC is a voluntary organization that campaigns  
for affordable  healthcare  in  the country,  particularly  for people  living  with  
HIV/AIDS. They requested that we approve the merger on condition that the  
merging parties allow  generic competition  for all medicines needed for the  
treatment   of   opportunistic   infections   in   HIV/AIDS   and   anti­retrovirals   for  
HIV. The TAC claimed that the merging parties dominated the market in the  
above   medicines   and   identified   a   number   of   products   manufactured   or  
imported by the merging parties. The TAC complained about high prices of  
drugs used for the treatment of patients with HIV/AIDS. They claimed that if  
the merger is allowed to go through without the proposed condition relating to  
generic products the merging firms could charge excessive prices that would  
make it difficult for most HIV/AIDS patients to afford treatment.
21. The TAC submitted to us that this merger will give the parties a monopoly in  
the market for the production of HIV anti­retrovirals (J5C) and drugs used for  
the   treatment   of   opportunistic   infections   associated   with   HIV/AIDS.  
Regarding the latter the TAC submitted a list of drugs manufactured by Glaxo  
Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. The TAC did not however classify the  
products into therapeutic categories to determine overlaps  resulting from the  
merger.

products into therapeutic categories to determine overlaps  resulting from the  
merger.
22. We requested the Commission to investigate the concerns raised by the TAC. 
23. The Commission found that Glaxo Wellcome produces a number of HIV anti­
retrovirals,   but   no   evidence   that   SmithKline   Beecham   also   produces   drugs  
falling under this therapeutic category.   The Commission concluded therefore  
that   there   was   no   product   overlap   in   this   therapeutic   category   and  
recommended that we not impose another condition on the merging parties  
relating to this therapeutic category.
24. With   regard   to   drugs   used   for   the   treatment   of   opportunistic   infections  
associated with HIV/AIDS the Commission also recommended that no further  
condition be imposed on the merging parties. Using the ATC3 classification  
the Commission found that the only overlap in the drugs listed by the TAC  
was   in   relation   to   drugs   falling   under   the   therapeutic   category   A4A   (anti­
5

emetics)2. The drugs in this therapeutic category are used for the prevention  
and relief of nausea and vomiting by both patients with HIV/AIDS and those  
who do not have the disease. Since the merging parties had already undertaken  
to out license Granisteron  (“Kytril”) the Commission found that the overlap in  
this therapeutic category raised no competition concerns. 
25. The Commission, however, noted the concerns of the TAC and undertook to  
liaise with them to consider whether to launch an investigation pursuant to the  
TAC’s submission. 
26. We are sympathetic to the cause of the TAC.   However, in the absence of  
proof of product overlaps in the HIV treatment category in this merger we  
agree   with   the   recommendations   of   the   Commission.   We   find   no   basis   to  
impose a further condition on the merging parties pursuant to the submission  
by the TAC.  
27.  With regard to the effect of the merger on employment, there is not enough  
information at this stage for us to make a finding. Decisions relating to how  
the restructuring necessitated  by the merger will be effected have not been  
finalised. The information given to us by the parties suggests that the merger  
will result in some job losses as the two firms consolidate their operations.  
According to the parties this will affect mostly white­collar workers who are  
highly skilled and experienced who can easily find alternative employment.  
The   parties   also   indicated   that   they   would   provide   support   to   all   affected  
employees   to  help  them  secure  other  employment.   We  note  that  the  South  
African   Chemical   Workers   Union,   which   represents   most   of   the   merging  
parties’ employees was notified of the merger and did not file any submissions  
with the Commission or with us.
_______________ 28 July 2000    
N.M. Manoim Date
Concurring: D.H. Lewis; U. Bhoola
2  The drugs manufactured by the merging parties falling in this therapeutic category appear in Table 1  
above.
6