Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd and Bulktrans (Pty) Ltd (61/LM/Jul05) [2005] ZACT 57 (1 September 2005)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition — Merger approval — Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd and Bulktrans (Pty) Ltd — Competition Tribunal approving merger under section 16(2)(a) — Imperial Group acquiring 100% of Bulktrans’s transport assets — Bulktrans exiting logistics services due to lack of viability — Market defined as national with low barriers to entry and multiple competitors — Tribunal concluding merger will not substantially lessen or prevent competition and approving transaction unconditionally.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
     Case No: 61/LM/Jul05
In the large merger between: 
Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd 
and
Bulktrans (Pty) Ltd 
Reasons for Decision
________________________________________________________________
APPROVAL
On   30   August   2005   the   Competition   Tribunal   issued   a   Merger   Clearance  
Certificate   approving   the   merger   between   the   Imperial   Group   (Pty)   Ltd   and  
Bulktrans (Pty) Ltd in terms of section 16(2)(a). The reasons for the approval of the  
merger appear below.
The Parties
1. The acquiring firm is Imperial  Group (Pty) Ltd. (“IG”). IG is controlled by  
Imperial Holdings Ltd, along with a number of other subsidiaries. 
2. The primary target firm is Bulktrans (Pty) Ltd (“BT”), controlled by Eyethu  
Logistics,   ultimately   controlled   by   the   Deysel   Family   Trust   (“Deysel”).  
Bulktrans   controls   other   firms   in   Botswana,   Namibia,   Lesotho   and  
Swaziland.
The Merger Transaction
3. IG will acquire 100% of the transport assets (including customer contracts  
being ceded), trademarks and goodwill of BT and its subsidiaries.

Rationale for the Transaction 
d. BT wishes to exit the business of providing logistics and transport  
services   to   petrochemical   companies.     It   lacks   the   technical  
infrastructure   and   resources   to   be   able   to   services   its   vehicles  
sufficiently. It is unable to grow and remain viable in the market. 
The relevant product market
5. The product overlap  between the activities of  BT and IG  is in the  
transportation   and   distribution   of   petrochemicals.   This   is   a   narrower  
interpretation   of   the   market,   which   could   conceivably   be   broadened   to  
include other modalities of transportation of fuel, such as rail or pipeline.
6. The Commission did not express a view as to whether the relevant market  
may be broadened, since no competition concerns arise on the narrower  
definition. We agree with this approach.
The relevant geographic market
7. Since   the   large   oil   companies   tender   for   the   distribution   of  
petrochemicals   on   a   nationwide   basis,   the   market   is   defined   as   a  
national one. 
Effect on Competition
viii.The   combined   post­merger   market   share   is   estimated   at  
4.55%. BT’s contribution to this market share is less than 1%.  
There are at least 12 other competitors in this market.
9. The Commission market enquiries revealed that barriers to entry into the  
market are low and that tanker capacity in the market is due to increase.
10. There are no vertical concerns arising from this transaction.
Conclusion
We conclude that the merger will not lead to a substantial lessening or prevention  
of competition.  
The Tribunal therefore approves the transaction unconditionally. There are no  
public interest concerns which would alter this conclusion.

__________
1 September 2005
N. Manoim    Date
Concurring: Y. Carrim, D. Lewis 
For the merging parties:  
For the Commission: