Growthpoint Properties Limited and Tresso 119 (Pty) Ltd (27/LM/Apr05) [2005] ZACT 38 (9 June 2005)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition Law — Merger Approval — Growthpoint Properties Limited acquiring Tresso 119 (Pty) Ltd — The Competition Tribunal approved the merger between Growthpoint and Tresso, which involved the acquisition of a portfolio of immovable properties and associated contracts. The Tribunal found that the post-merger market share in overlapping markets was relatively low, with no significant competition concerns arising from the transaction. The merger was deemed unlikely to substantially lessen competition, and no significant public interest issues were identified, leading to unconditional approval of the transaction.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: 27/LM/Apr05
In The Large Merger Between: 
Growthpoint Properties Limited
And
Tresso 119 (Pty) Ltd
Reasons for Decision
Approval
On the 17 May 2005 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance Certificate approving  
the transaction between Growthpoint Properties Limited and Tresso 119 (Pty) Ltd. The reasons  
for this decision follow. 
The Parties 
1. The primary acquiring firm is Growthpoint Properties Limited (“Growthpoint”). 1 The primary  
target firm is Tresso 119 (Pty) Ltd (“Tresso”). 2
The transaction
2. The transaction involves Growthpoint acquiring a portfolio of immovable properties, 3 as well  
as   all   right,   title   and   interest   in   and   to   lease   agreements   and   service   and   maintenance  
contracts in respect of the premises forming part of each of the properties. In terms of the  
Sale   Agreement,   Growthpoint   may   nominate   a   purchaser   who   will   take   transfer   of   the  
acquisition instead of Growthpoint. In their filing with the Commission, the merging parties  
indicated that Growthpoint was investigating the implementation of a securitisation scheme  
to fund the acquisition, which would involve the nomination of a  trust  as a purchaser under  
the Sale agreement. 
1  A list of the firms, which hold more than 5% of the issued capital of Growthpoint, can be found on page  
5 of the Record. A list of the companies controlled by Growthpoint appears at page 40 of the Record.
2  Details of the subsidiaries and associated companies of Tresso appear at page 124 of the Record.
3  A detailed list of the properties to be acquired can be found on pages 279­304 of the record as well as  
in an updated Appendix attached to correspondence from Jowell Glyn & Marais to the Tribunal dated 11  
May 2005.

3. After the Commission’s referral, the Tribunal was informed 4  that the securitisation scheme  
would go ahead and that Growthpoint would take transfer of certain of the properties and  
that certain of the properties would be transferred to a trust. According to the parties, the  
trust   was   yet   to   be   created   and   Growthpoint   would   be   the   vested   capital   and   income  
beneficiary of the trust.  
4. At   the   hearing   of   the   matter   on   16   May   2005,   the   Tribunal   was   informed   that   the  
documentation relating to the creation of the trust had still not been finalised. The parties,  
however subsequently provided the Tribunal with a written undertaking that copies of such  
trust documentation will be lodged with the Tribunal as soon as these had been finalised. 5
Rationale for the transaction
5. From   Growthpoint’s   perspective,   the   acquisition   offers   investors   geographically   and  
sectorally  diversified  exposure  to  the  physical  property  assets  underpinned  by  long­term,  
sustainable, escalating income streams. Growthpoint will also be exposed to the office and  
industrial sectors in the Western Cape region.
6. For Tresso, the transaction was motivated by its shareholder’s need for cash, which resulted  
in the identification of certain properties, which could be sold.
The Parties’ Activities
7. Both Growthpoint and Tresso are property loan stock companies and hence involved in the  
property   industry.   Both   parties   derive   their   income   primarily   from   rentals   received   from  
tenants   in   properties   owned   by   them.   These   properties   are   located   throughout   South  
Africa.6 Growthpoint also derives income from investments. 7  
8. The   Commission   found   that   parties   activities   overlapped   particularly   in   the   following  
markets:
i) Grade A office space in Sandton, Parktown and Midrand;
ii) Grade B office space in Sandton, Parktown and Pretoria CBD; and

ii) Grade B office space in Sandton, Parktown and Pretoria CBD; and
iii) Light industrial property in Johannesburg South and Cape Town.
Impact on competition
9. According to the Commission, the combined market share of the merging parties in all but  
one of the above overlapping markets is relatively low. 8  In the market for Grade B office  
space in Sandton, the post merger market share is approximately 23%. According to the  
Commission, while this figure appears high, the market share data is based on industry data  
supplied   by   the   South   African   Property   Owners   Association   (“SAPOA”),   and   therefore  
4  Correspondence from Jowell Glyn & Marais to the Tribunal dated 11 May 2005.
5  The undertaking was provided on the 16 May 2005.
6  Tresso also owns a hotel and shopping centre in Namibia.
7  See page 264 of the record for a list of the companies Growthpoint holds interest in.
8  See Page 6­7 of the Commission's Report.
2

includes only SAPOA members. If non­members’ data is added, the Commission submits  
that the merging parties market shares will reduce.
10. The Commission was of the view that no competition concerns arise out of the transaction  
as post merger, the merged entity will compete with a number of large property companies  
in   the   identified   markets. 9  According   to   the   parties,   there   also   exists   significant  
countervailing   power   from   tenants,   which   increases   due   to   the   existing   oversupply   of  
commercial   property.   With   regard   to   industrial   warehousing,   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. 10
Conclusion
11. Based  on  the  above,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  transaction  will   not  result  in  a  substantial  
lessening   of   competition   in   the   identified   markets.   We   have   no   other   concerns   and   are  
satisfied that there are no significant public interest issues, which arise, and we accordingly  
approve this transaction unconditionally.
9 June 2005
Y Carrim   Date
Concurring: U Bhoola and M Mokuena
For the merging parties: I Gaigher (Jowell Glyn & Marais)
For the Commission: E Mtantato (Mergers and Acquisitions)
9  See list on page 7 of the Commission's Report.
10  See pages 275­278 of the record.
3