Investec Property Group Limited and Nestl� (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (77/LM/Dec03) [2004] ZACT 5 (2 February 2004)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition — Merger Approval — Sale and leaseback transaction between Investec Property Group Limited and Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd — Transaction involves Nestlé selling its industrial warehouse property to Investec and leasing it back — Competition Tribunal assesses impact on competition and public interest — Tribunal concludes merger will not substantially lessen competition as Investec's market share remains below 1% and the market is highly competitive with no significant barriers to entry — Merger approved unconditionally.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: 77/LM/DEC03
In The Large Merger Between: 
Investec Property Group Limited
And
Nestlé (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Reasons for Decision
Approval
1. On   28   January   2004   the   Competition   Tribunal   issued   a   Merger   Clearance   Certificate  
approving   the   transaction   between   Investec   Property   Group   Limited   and   Nestl é   (South  
Africa) (Pty) Ltd. The reasons for this decision follow. 
The Parties 
2. The primary acquiring firm is Investec Property Group Limited (“Investec Property”), a wholly  
owned subsidiary of Investec Property Group Holdings Limited which is ultimately owned by  
Investec Limited, a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
3. The   primary   target   firm   is   Nestl é   (South   Africa)   (Pty)   Ltd   (“Nestl é”),   a   wholly   owned  
subsidiary of the Swiss confectionary company, Nestl é S.A Company, which is listed on the  
Swiss stock exchange.  
The transaction
4. The   transaction,   which   is   a   sale   and   lease­back   arrangement,   involves   Nestl é   selling  
industrial warehouse space on which its regional head office is located in the Longmeadows  
Business   Estate   in   Modderfontein,   Johannesburg.   In   terms   of   the   merger   agreement  
Investec Property will then lease the property back to Nestl é in its capacity as landlord for a  
period of ten years.
The Parties’ Activities
5. Nestlé is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of a broad array of food products  
ranging   from   confectionary   (chocolates)   to   pet   foods   to   instant   foods   to   infant   foods.  
However   it   is   Nestl é’s   immovable   property,   which   is   the  subject   of   this   transaction.   This

property is used as a warehouse and distribution facility exclusively by Nestl é.
6. Investec   Property   is   a   property   holding   company,   involved   in   property   management,  
property trading and development and property fund management. Investec property owns,  
manages   and   develops   properties.   Investec   Property   currently   owns   two   industrial  
warehouse properties.
7. The   Investec   Group   provides   a   wide   range   of   financial   products   and   services,   viz.  
Investment banking, Treasury and Specialized finance, Private banking and Client portfolio  
management and Asset management. 
Impact on competition
8. In the Commission’s view, although the properties of Investec Property and Nestl é are both  
industrial   warehouse   facilities,   they   do   not   compete   in   the   market   for   letting   industrial  
warehouse   space.   This   is   because   Nestl é’s   property   was   owned   and   used   for   its   own  
purposes.  
9. However,   as   a   result   of   the   transaction,   Nestl é’s   property   will   now   become   part   of   this  
broader   rentable   industrial   warehouse   property   market.   Investec’s   market   share   in   this  
market is currently less than 1%, and with the addition of Nestl é’s property will remain less  
than 1%.  
10. The Parties submit that this market is very competitive, and tenants will generally tend to  
migrate to those premises in any particular area in respect of which they are offered the  
most attractive terms. Tenants therefore exercise significant countervailing power. 
11. There are no significant barriers to entry other than the need for capital investment. The  
Parties further submit that there isn’t any shortage of vacant land available for development  
as industrial warehousing space in the market.
Conclusion
12. Having   regard   to   the   above,   we   conclude   that   the   merger   will   not   lead   to   a   substantial

lessening of competition and there are no significant public interest concerns.   Accordingly,  
we  agree with  the  Commission’s   recommendation  that   the  transaction  be unconditionally  
approved.
2 February 2004
N Manoim   Date
Concurring: P Maponya and M Holden
2

For the merging parties: Pieter Steyn (Werksmans Attorneys)
For the Commission: Maarten Van Hoven (Mergers and Acquisitions)
3