COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: 103/LM/Dec04
In the large merger between:
Capital Alliance Life Limited
and
Rentmeester Assurance Limited
Reasons for Decision
Approval
1. The Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate on 23 rd
February 2005 approving, without conditions, the merger between the
abovementioned merging parties. The reasons for approving the merger
appear below.
Merging parties
2. The primary acquiring firm is Capital Alliance Limited (“CAL”), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Capital Alliance Holdings Ltd (“CAH”). CAH is a public company listed in
the financial life assurance sector on the JSE, and is not controlled by any firm in
particular.1
3. The primary target firm is Rentmeester Assurance Limited (“Rentmeester”)
whose shareholders are Rentsure Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Rentsure”) and Rentekor (Pty)
Ltd (“Rentkor”). 2 Rentmeester’ wholly owned subsidiaries are Alnet (Pty) Ltd 3;
Begrafnisdienste (Pty) Ltd Intergardia Trust; Killyman Estates (Pty) Ltd; and Sillena
Development Co. (Pty) Ltd. 4 Rentsure, a suspended listed public company in the
financiallife assurance sector on the JSE, controls Rentmeester. The major
shareholders of Rentsure (holding more than 5% of the issued share capital of
1 The shareholders of CAH holding more than 5% of the issued share capital of CAH are Lexshell 519
Investments (Pty) Ltd (19.2%); Investec Bank Ltd (8.2%); Capital Alliance Special Finance (Pty) Ltd
(5.4%); Investec Asset Managers (o.b.o. their clients) (5.3%); Coronation Fund Managers (o.b.o. their
clients) (6.5%); and Old Mutual Asset Managers (o.b.o. their clients) (11%).
clients) (6.5%); and Old Mutual Asset Managers (o.b.o. their clients) (11%).
2 Rentsure and Rentekor holds 70% and 30% of the issued share capital in Rentmeester respectively.
3 In terms of clause 5.2.2 of the transaction agreement, Rentmeester is obliged to sell 100% of the
entire issued share capital of Alnet, and therefore only Alnet will not form part of the present
transaction. The parties pointed out that Rentmeester is currently in negotiations with a 3 rd party for
the sale of Alnet, and such transaction will be notified separately to the Commission (Page
28, para. 4 of the record).
4 See Rentmeester’s Group Structure (Page 94 of the record).
Rentsure) are Rentekor (43.8%) and Lefika Holdings (Pty) Ltd (12.3%). 5
The merger transaction
4. The proposed transaction constitutes an acquisition by CAL of the entire issued
share capital of Rentmeester from Rentsure and Rentekor. After implementation of
the proposed transaction, Rentmeester will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
CAL.
Rationale for the transaction
5. The parties pointed out that Rentmeester had received a notice from the Registrar
of LongTerm Insurance acting through the Financial Services Board (“FSB”) raising
concerns about the financial soundness of the business and requiring them to take
steps to rectify the situation. Sale of the business was considered the best option and
CAL which has had a policy of acquiring other insurance businesses had made the
most attractive offer.
Activities of the merging parties
6. CAL is a registered longterm insurer which provides both individual insurance
policies and group insurance products. The former category includes products such
as life, disability, health and investment benefits whilst the latter category includes
products such as pension, provident and retirement funds. CAL also owns various
property holding and investment holding companies. It owns six office properties
situated in Johannesburg and Witbank 6.
7. Rentmeester too is a longterm insurer which provides individual and group
insurance policies similar to those of CAL. It also provide through its subsidiaries –
funeral undertaking services (mainly in Pretoria) and the development of
underdeveloped residential properties 7 in Hazyview, Mpumalanga. Rentmeester also
has a property management services division, which acts as letting agent of
properties, situated in Pretoria, Centurion, Port Elizabeth, Pietersburg and
Johannesburg. Rentmeester further owns 2 office and retail properties situated in
Pretoria.8
Pretoria.8
The relevant market
8. As articulated above, both parties are registered longterm insurance companies,
which provide both individual and group life insurance policies. They also own a
number of office properties in various geographic areas. It is implicit, therefore, that
an overlap exists in the activities of the merging parties with respect to the provision
5 Rentekor is controlled by the JJ Vermooten Trust, which is a family trust controlled by the
Vermooten family. It is submitted that the Vermooten family indirectly controls Rentsure.
6 Refer to pages 370 (para. 4.1.3) and 372 (Appendix 1).
7 Sillena (Pty) Ltd is the subsidiary through which CAL provides the services. The parties pointed out
that these interests are subject to sale.
8 The parties indicated that Rentmeester has substantially reduced its property portfolio as a result of
the Registrar of LongTerm Insurance’s directive that Rentmeester’s exposure to property investments
must be minimised. (See pages 370 – Para. 4.2.5, and Appendix 2 (page 373374) of the file).
2
of office properties and group and individual insurance policies.
9. The Commission expressed that from a policyholder or customer perspective, both
individual and group covers (which fall under longterm insurance and regulated in
terms of the LongTerm Insurance Act) are not interchangeable. The parties asserted
that, from a supply side, providers of individual and group policies could potentially
enter each other’s market segments without incurring substantial costs. 9 In this
regard, the longterm insurance licence issued to the longterm insurer by the FSB
does not restrict the insurer as to which kind of cover it could provide. The insurer
concerned is therefore free to choose whether it wishes to focus on individual or life
policies or both. The Commission contended that from a supply side substitution
perspective an insurer who renders individual cover could also render group cover
and vice versa. The Commission, therefore, adopted a broader market definition as
the market for the provision of longterm insurance.
10. We need not confine ourselves with what the relevant product market is as the
transaction is unlikely to prevent or lessen competition substantially irrespective of
any market definition adopted.
Geographic market
11. As alluded to above, CAL has 6 office properties situated in JHB and Witbank
whilst Rentmeester owns 2 office properties based in Pretoria. The Commission
viewed the geographic market as national because the tenants look into their local
area when they need to rent a property. It further contended that no geographic
overlap exists as CAL does not have office properties in Pretoria.
12. As is evident from the above, the merging parties provide longterm insurance
throughout South Africa, and the geographic domain is therefore national.
Effect on competition
13. We were advised at the hearing that the merging parties would have a combined
13. We were advised at the hearing that the merging parties would have a combined
postmerger market share of about 4% in the category of group life insurance, and
only less than 3% in the individual life category. 10 In all cases the merging parties’
combined postmerger market shares appears to be relatively low, and do not give a
cause for concern. Furthermore, no geographic overlap exists between the parties
with respect to the provision of office properties.
Public Interest Concerns
14. The merger filing reflected that CAL has a staff complement of 780 (i.e., 530
permanent and 250 sales consultants) at the moment. The current staff complement
of Rentmeester is 200 employees. Therefore the total number of the employees post
merger will be 980. The parties were uncertain as to the exact number of employees
to be retrenched pursuant to the proposed merger. The parties submitted that given
the duplication in the support and/or back office function, if any retrenchments are to
9 See page 368 of the record.
10 See Mr Martin Appelo’s testimony (Page 3 of the transcript of 23 rd February 2005).
3
be effected, the worstcase scenario is that it will only affect an absolute maximum of
40 employees out of possible 980 employees. The Commission contended that this
only constitutes 4% of the entire work force of the merged entity.
15. On the other hand, the parties submitted that Rentmeester is failing, and in the
event that it is placed under curatorship, all 200 employees might face retrenchment.
The merging parties confirmed that CAL would make all efforts to minimise the
number of affected employees (this usually would occur by way of natural attrition of
employees and/or by way of internal transfers within CAL.
16. Considering that the target firm is placed under curatorship, all 200 employees
will lose their jobs and the fact that only 40 out of 980 will lose their job on a worse
case scenario, the Commission submitted that the merger does not raise significant
public interest concerns which can justify a conditional approval or prohibition of the
merger. 11
17. The Commission did not receive any submissions from employees opposing the
merger.
18. For the above reasons, we concur with the Commission that the transaction be
unconditionally approved.
_______________ 18 March 2005
Norman Manoim Date
Concurring: Yasmin Carrim and Merle Holden
For the merging parties: Ilse Gaigher (Jowell Glyn & Marais Attorneys)
For the Commission: Magale Mohlala & Edwell Mtantato ( Mergers &
Acquisitions)
11 On employment issues submissions, refer to pages 56 (paras. 3,4 & 5); 369370; 375376 of the
record; and page 7 of the Commission’s recommendation.
4