Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd and Scientific Group (Pty) Ltd / Scientific Group Investments (Pty) Ltd (70/LM/Aug05) [2005] ZACT 77 (3 November 2005)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition — Merger Approval — Merger between Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd and Scientific Group (Pty) Ltd & Scientific Group Investments (Pty) Ltd approved without conditions — The merger involves AICC acquiring the entire issued share capital of SGI and a significant stake in Scientific Group, enhancing AICC’s market presence in the pathology sector — Legal issue pertains to whether the merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition — Tribunal concludes that the merger is unlikely to substantially impede competition due to low post-merger market shares and the presence of strong competitors in the pathology market.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
       Case no.: 70/LM/Aug05  
In the large merger between: 
Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd 
And 
The Scientific Group (Pty) Ltd, and 
Scientific Group Investments (Pty) Ltd
 ________________________________________________________________
Reasons
________________________________________________________________
Introduction
On   29   September   2005   the   Tribunal   approved   the   merger   between   Adcock  
Ingram   Critical   Care   (Pty)   Ltd   and   the   Scientific   Group   (Pty)   Ltd   &   Scientific  
Group Investments (Pty) Ltd without conditions.   The reasons are set out below.  
The transaction
The transaction comprises the acquisition by Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty)  
Ltd (“AICC”) of the entire issued share capital of Scientific Group Investments  
(Pty) Ltd (“SGI”) and 46.8% of the issued share capital of Scientific Group (Pty)  
Ltd (“Scientific Group”).
AICC is controlled by Adcock Ingram Holdings (Pty) Ltd (”Adcock Ingram”), which  
in turn is controlled by Tiger Brands Ltd. 
Scientific Group is a private company with the following shareholders:
 Coronation Capital Ltd  46.8%
 SGI 27.1%
 Brimstone Investment Corporation 26.1%

Since SGI holds 27.2% of the issued share capital of the Scientific Group, AICC  
will directly and indirectly hold 74% of the issued share capital of the Scientific  
Group. The remainder of the shares in the Scientific Group will continue to be  
held by Brimstone Investment Corporation Ltd (“Brimstone”). 
Thereafter, by way of an internal restructuring, the Scientific Group will acquire  
the Adcock Ingram Scientific Division from AICC.
Rationale for the transaction
The transaction would enable AICC to achieve economies of scale and offer a  
more diverse product range that would facilitate its entry into the medical,  
hospital, academic and industrial segments of the pathology market where it  
currently doesn’t compete. According to Scientific Group the Adcock Ingram  
brand name will enhance customer confidence in its products.
Effect on competition
Adcock Ingram is a South African pharmaceutical firm, which is involved in the  
manufacturing,   marketing   and   distribution   of   pharmaceutical,   critical   care   and  
consumer   care   products   across   a   wide   range   of   therapeutic   categories   that  
include patented and generic products. 
AICC, the acquiring firm, markets and sells the following products:
 Hospital products
 Blood systems and accessories
 Products used for renal dialysis
 Transplant medication
The Scientific Group conducts business in the pathology and the hospital  
equipment markets. The products sold to the pathology market comprise  
diagnostic reagents, consumables and bench­top equipment used in diagnosing  
diseases. In the hospital equipment market it assembles and imports life support  
equipment specialising in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care, patient  
monitoring, operating tables, theatre lights and emergency care which are sold to  
hospitals.
The Competition Commission identified the Pathology and Hospital product  
markets as the only markets within which the parties’ activities overlapped.
2

Within the pathology market Adcock Ingram and the Scientific Group compete to  
a limited extent and in the hospital product market they sell  different types of  
hospital   equipment,   which   are   not   substitutable.     Since   the   parties   do   not  
compete   within   a   narrow   definition   of   the   hospital   product   market   the  
Commission only analysed competition within the pathology market. 
In   their   analysis   of   the   pathology   product   market   the   parties   indicated   that  
although it was possible to delineate the market on a product­by­product basis it  
would not be feasible because of the vast number of products involved as well as  
technical differences within each of these sub markets. They therefore identified  
sub­markets within the broad pathology product market according to the various  
customer segments that they supply, namely:
• Biotechnology/Academic segment
• Analytical/Industry Segment
• Medical and Critical segment
• Servicing segment
• Distributors/Exporters segment
The merging party will compete with various multinational firms such as Roche,  
Beckman Coulter, Beyer Diagnostics and Abbot in the broad pathology market.  
Its market share post the transaction will be less than 15% with Beckman Coulter  
being its largest competitor with a market share of 25%.   Even within a narrow  
delineation   of   the   pathology   market,   i.e.   according   to   customers   targeted,   the  
merged   entity’s   market   share   would   be   12%   in   the   Private   pathology/Clinic  
customer segment, 7% in the Academia/Biosciences/research customer segment  
and   4.5%   in   the   Industrial,   pharmaceutical   and   food   industries   customer  
segment.
In light of the low market shares and the fact that strong rivals compete in the  
pathology market we agree with the Competition Commission that it is unlikely  
that the merger will substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market in  
which it operates.
Public interest

which it operates.
Public interest 
Although the parties had indicated in the record that a maximum of 20 employees  
could be retrenched they informed the Tribunal at the hearing that no jobs will be  
lost as a result of the merger.
   
3

____________ 3  November 2005
D Lewis Date
Concurring:  N Manoim, Y Carrim
4