JD Group Limited and Connection Group Holdings Limited (91/LM/Oct05) [2005] ZACT 89 (29 November 2005)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Merger Control — Approval of merger — JD Group Ltd and Connection Group Holdings Ltd — Competition Tribunal approving merger between JD Group and Connection Group — JD to acquire entire issued share capital of Connection, which will continue trading under its brand — Tribunal finding that merger would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in relevant markets — No significant public interest issues arising from transaction.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL 
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
     Case No: 91/LM/Oct05
In the large merger between: 
JD Group Limited 
and
Connection Group Holdings Limited
Reasons for Decision
________________________________________________________________
Approval
On   24   November   2005   the   Competition   Tribunal   issued   a   Merger   Clearance  
Certificate approving the merger between the JD Group Ltd and Connection Group  
Holdings Ltd. The reasons for the decision appear below.
The transaction
1. The JD Group Ltd (“JD”) will acquire the entire issued share capital of the  
Connection Group (“Connection”). Connection’s listing on the JSE will be  
terminated after the merger, however, it will continue to trade under its own  
brand identity, merchandise range and market profile.
2. JD,   a   holding   company   listed   on   the   JSE,   owns   the   following   furniture,  
electrical   and   electronic   retail   chains   that   offers   a   wide   variety   of   home  
furniture,   home   electrical   appliances   and   consumer   electronic   goods  
nationally:
• Barnetts
• Price and Pride
• Joshua Doore

• Russels
• Bradlows
• Morkels
• Electric Express
• Hi­Fi Corporation
 
3. Connection is involved in the sale of consumer electronic goods through  
two national retail chains:
• Photo Connection
• Incredible Connection
Rationale for the Transaction 
d. The   transaction   affords   Connection   the   opportunity   to   expand   its  
business   by   accessing   the   credit   granting   skills   and   the   asset,  
customer and capital base of JD.
 
e. According to JD the transaction will expand its business into product  
markets   in   which   it   has   limited   exposure.   JD   intends   to   introduce  
credit   sales   in   Connection   thereby   affording   lower   LSM’s   the  
opportunity to acquire computers and various photographic products.
Effect on Competition
f. The   Competition   Commission   identified   the   following   national  
product markets: 
o photographic imaging products and related services, 
o computer   hardware   and   software   products   and   related  
services, 
o small business machines, 
o mobile telephony termination devices, and 
o media and multimedia products. 
g. Within these relevant markets the  merging  parties’   market  shares,  
post the transaction, will change as follows:
2

Product market JD Connection Merged entity
Photographic  1.47% 7.09% 8.56%
Computer 1.69% 13.53% 15.22%
Small   Business  
machines
1.05% 13.47% 14.52%
Mobile telephony 0.25% 0.08% 0.33%
Multi­media Not available Not available Not available
h. The parties were not able to provide estimated market shares for the  
Media  and Multimedia  products market  but  the Commission  found  
that, based on the revenues generated by each, the market share of  
the   merged   entity   post   the   transaction   would   represent   an  
inconsequentially small proportion of the total market, less than 2%.  
i. According   to   the   Competition   Commission   large   retail   chains  
compete with the merging parties in all of the above product markets.  
In the photographic imaging market Massmart (with a market share  
of 20%) and Nu­World (with 10%) compete with the merged entity. In  
the   computer   hardware   product   market   Massmart   (13.53%)   and  
Metcash   (2%),   as   well   as   computer   manufacturers,   offer   products  
through   retail   and   wholesale   distribution   outlets.   In   the   market   for  
small   business   machines   Massmart   (45%)   and   Metcash   (1.54%)  
compete   while   the   merging   entity’s   market   share   in   the   mobile  
telephony   and   the   media   and   multi­media   markets   are   too  
insignificant to substantially affect competition. 
j. Connection has exclusive supply agreements with vendors such as  
Acer, HP, Packard Bell and Sony to supply their computer products.  
However,   these   agreements   relate   only   to   specific   models   within  
each brand and not to the whole product range within each brand.  
Other   brands   that   compete   with   these   are   Mecer,   Dell,   Fujitsu  
Siemens, IBM, Epson, LG and Toshiba.    
k. In light of the above we find that the merger would not substantially  
prevent or lessen competition in any of the relevant markets. 
Public Interest issues

prevent or lessen competition in any of the relevant markets. 
Public Interest issues
l. There   are   no   significant   public   interest   issues   arising   from   the  
transaction.
3

29 November 2005
N Manoim    Date
Concurring:  Y. Carrim, M Mokuena
For the merging parties:  Adv Willem Pretorius acting for Feinsteins Attorneys
For the Commission: Thamsanqa Kekana
4