Clidet No. 533 (Pty) Limited and Defy Appliances Ltd (88/LM/Oct04) [2005] ZACT 5 (17 January 2005)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition Law — Merger Approval — Unconditional approval of merger between Clidet No. 533 (Pty) Limited and Defy Appliances Ltd — Clidet acquiring Defy Appliances as a going concern along with shares in its subsidiaries — No product overlap or vertical concerns identified — Transaction unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition — No public interest issues affecting approval.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
                                                                                               Case No.: 88/LM/Oct04
In the large merger between:
Clidet No. 533 (Pty) Limited 
and
Defy Appliances Ltd and Others
                                                       Reasons for Decision
Approval
[1]                 The   Competition   Tribunal   issued   a   Merger   Clearance   Certificate   on   15     
December 2004 approving unconditionally the merger between the abovementioned  
merging parties. The reasons for the approval of the merger appear below.
The merger transaction
[2] The   proposed   transaction   entails   Clidet   acquiring   the   business   of   Defy  
Appliances   as   a   going   concern,   the   business   of   Defy   Limited   together   with   sale  
shares in certain subsidiaries of Defy Limited. They are Defy Trust Two (Pty) Ltd;  
Ocean   Appliances   Ltd;   Carron   SA   (Pty)   Ltd;   Kindoc   Park   (Pty)   Ltd;   Malbak  
Appliances Trademarks Ltd; Defy Namibia (Pty) Ltd; and Defy Botswana (Pty) Ltd. 
[3] On completion of the transaction the business of Defy Appliances, and the  
shares in the subsidiaries, will be directly controlled by Clidet.
Rationale for the transaction
[4] According   to   the   parties,   the   transaction   allows   Defy   Appliances’   major  
shareholder, Trillion Nominees (Pty) Ltd (Ethos Fund III) to realise its investment in  
Defy   Appliances   after   a   7­year   investment   period.   It   further   allows   the   Defy  
management   consortium   and   employees   to   realise   a   significant   portion   of   their  
original   investment   and   the   opportunity   to  continue   to   participate   in   the   business.  
Standard Bank Private Equity (“SPE”) and Ayavuna Women’s Investments (Pty) Ltd  
(“Ayavuna”) respectively see this deal as an opportunity for long­term investment and  
as empowerment of previously disadvantaged individuals gaining a shareholding of  
25%.1 
Merging parties

25%.1 
Merging parties
[5] The   primary acquiring firm   is Clidet No 533 (Pty) Ltd (“Clidet”), a special  
1  See the record (Page 346), paragraph 20.

purpose vehicle created mainly for the present acquisition. The parties to the merger  
informed us at the hearing that SPE and Ayavuna jointly control Clidet. 2  
[6] The  primary target firm  is Defy Appliances together with all the subsidiaries  
of Defy Ltd which are listed above. The Commission collectively referred to them as  
the “target group”. It appears that none of the firms within the target group control any  
firm. 
What are the merging parties’ main activities?
The Primary Acquiring Firm
[7] Clidet   is   a   newly   formed   (shelf)   company   which   has   not   yet   commenced  
trading.
 
[8] Standard Bank  is a banking and financial institution composed of a number  
of Divisions through which it offers the following services: ­
 Retail   Banking   Division   –   offers   banking,   investment,   insurance   and   other  
financial   services   to   individual   customers   and   small   to   medium­sized  
enterprises throughout South Africa.
 Corporate   and   Investment   Banking   Division   –   provides   commercial   &  
investment   banking   services   to   large   corporates   in   South   Africa,   foreign  
banks and international counterparts.
 In addition, Standard Bank also operates in the insurance industry through  
control of the Liberty Group. According to the Commission, Standard Bank is  
also a property investment holding company.
[9] SPE   provides   funding   for   the   following   classes   of   transaction:   acquisition  
finance; empowerment funding; expansion capital; leveraged buy­outs; management  
buy­outs; mezzanine debt; and pure equity investments. 3  The Commission pointed  
out that SPE does not have any interest in any entity which is involved in business  
similar to that of the target group. 4 
[10] Ayavuna  is a newly formed investment company, which has never traded. 
The primary target firms
[11] Defy   Appliances   manufactures   the   following   products:   domestic   cooking

[11] Defy   Appliances   manufactures   the   following   products:   domestic   cooking  
appliances;   domestic   refrigeration   appliances;   domestic   dishwashing   appliances;  
domestic laundry appliances; and room air­conditioning appliances. Defy Appliances  
is  also   responsible   for  the  sales,  warehousing,   distribution  and   after­sales   service  
functions of the abovementioned products. 5  
[12] Defy Trust 2  is a property holding company that owns one property which is  
2  See the transcript (Page 1) dated 15 December 2004. 
3  For more detail, see the e­mail from Cliffe Dekker to the Commission (page 428­429 of the Record).
4  Refer to the CC’s Report (Page 4).
5  Refer to the Record (pages 338­339).
2

used solely as the head office of Defy (in Jacobs, Durban).
[13] Ocean Appliances and Carron SA  are both dormant companies, and have  
no current business activities in RSA.
[14] Malbak Appliances Trademarks  is a holding company that was incorporated  
specifically to hold all trademarks of Defy.
[15] Kindoc Park  is a property holding company that owns one property (in East  
London), which is used by Defy Appliances to conduct its manufacturing business. 
[16] Defy (Namibia) and Defy (Botswana)  are foreign entities that do not trade in  
the Republic of South Africa. 6
Competition Evaluation 
[17] After comparing the activities of the parties, the Commission concluded that  
no   product   overlap   exists.   In   addition,   there   appeared   to   be   no   vertical   concerns  
arising from this merger.
[18] We, therefore, agree with the recommendation of the Commission that this  
transaction   is   unlikely   to   result   in   the   substantial   lessening   or   prevention   of  
competition. We accordingly approve this merger unconditionally.
 
Public Interest Concerns
[19] The   parties   stated   that   the   business   sold   would   be   acquired   as   a   going  
concern   hence   no   negative   impact   on   employment   is   envisaged.   No   other   public  
interest issues militate against the approval of this transaction.
 
_______________                                                                           17 January 2005
Norman Manoim                                                                                          Date   
 Concurring:  MTK Moerane     and Medi Mokuena   
For the merging parties:   Jocelyn  Katz  &  Kim  de  Kock   (Webber  Wentzel  
Bowens) on behalf of Ethos & Defy.
                                            Chris Charter (Cliffe Dekker Attorneys) on behalf of  
Clidet.
For the Commission:  Makgale   Mohlala   &   Vusa   Mabasa   ( Mergers   &  
Acquisitions)
6  For all these, see e­mail from WWB to the Commission (Page 425 of the Record).
3