Growthpoint Properties Ltd and Tresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd (18/LM/Feb06) [2006] ZACT 46 (26 May 2006)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition — Merger Approval — Growthpoint Properties Ltd acquiring Tresso Trading (Pty) Ltd — Tribunal unconditionally approves merger involving the acquisition of twenty-four immovable properties — Market shares post-merger assessed across various nodes, revealing no significant competition concerns — No public interest issues identified — Merger approved as it does not substantially lessen or prevent competition in the identified markets.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
          Case No: 18/LM/Feb06
In The Large Merger Between
Growthpoint Properties Ltd                                    Acquiring firm
And
Tresso Trading 119 (Pty) Ltd                                         Target firm
Reasons for Decision
Approval 
1.   On   17   May   2006,   the   Tribunal   unconditionally   approved   the   proposed  
merger transaction between the abovementioned parties.  The reasons for the  
decision follow.
Parties
2. The acquiring firm is Growthpoint Properties Ltd (“Growthpoint”) a variable  
rate stock company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in the real  
estate   sector.1   Growthpoint   is  not   controlled   by  any   entity.       The  primary  
target   firm  is  Tresso  Trading  (Pty)   Ltd  (“Tresso”)  an  unlisted  property   loan  
stock company. 2
Transaction
3.   The   transaction   involves   Growthpoint   acquiring   twenty­four   immovable  
properties (“Tresso Properties”) as well as all the rights, title, interests, lease  
agreement,   service   and   maintenance   contracts   in   respect   of   each   of   the  
Tresso Properties. 3   At the  hearing Ms Gaigher  appearing for the merging  
parties informed the Tribunal that one of the Tresso properties the Umhlanga  
Hospital was subject to a pre­emptive right by the lessee of that property and  
that the pre­emptive right was exercised and it is not part of the transaction  
anymore.
1  A list of all the firms that hold more than 5% of the issued capital of Growthpoint can be found on  
page 3 of the Commission’s Report. A list of companies controlled by Growthpoint appears on page21  
of the Record.
2  Details of 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 4 of the Commission’s Report.
1

Rationale of the transaction
4. From Growthpoint’s perspective, the Tresso property portfolio will increase  
its property asset base as well its absolute exposure in the Western Cape, a  
region   where   it   has   been   traditionally   difficult   to   find   good   commercial  
properties.       Growthpoint   also   considers   that   the   proposed   acquisition   will  
increase   its   exposure   to   the   Gauteng,   Western   Cape   and   KwaZulu   Natal  
commercial, retail and industrial sectors, all of which are expected to provide  
attractive returns over the medium term.   The proposed transaction will also  
improve   the   overall   quality   of   Growthpoint’s   portfolio   without   significantly  
changing the sectoral or regional composition of the portfolio.  For Tresso the  
transaction   is   motivated   by   its   shareholders   decision   to   divest   from   the  
property industry entirely.  
The merging parties activities
5. Both Growthpoint and Tresso are loan stock companies.  Both derive their  
income primarily on the rentals received from tenants in properties owned by  
them. 
Relevant Market
6.   The   Commission   defines   the   relevant   markets   as   the   markets   for   the  
provision   of   grade   A   office   space   in   Bryanston/Epsom   Downs,   Rosebank/  
Hyde   Park,   Bellville/   Goodwood   and   Midrand/Olifantfontein   nodes   and   the  
provision   of   industrial   warehousing   space   in   the   Meadowdale   node.     The  
Commission also found that there is an overlap in the activities of the merging  
parties as they operate in the property market.  According to the Commission  
in the narrow product market category they overlap in respect of Grade A and  
Grade   B   office   property   as   well   as   industrial   warehousing,   industrial   light  
manufacturing,   industrial   mini   and   midi   unit,   regional   shopping   centre   and  
community shopping centres and other property types in particular medical  
property.

community shopping centres and other property types in particular medical  
property.
 
Competition Evaluation of the Merger
Grade A Office space in Rosebank/ Hyde Park node
  7. The Commission’s investigation revealed that the merging parties would  
enjoy   a   combined   post   merger   market   share   of   14.62%   in   the   market   for  
Grade “A” office space in the Rosebank and Hyde Park nodes.   We agree  
with the Commission that the combined market share is not significant so as  
to   raise   competition   concerns.     Pre­merger   Growthpoint   had   an   estimated  
market   share   of   13.67%   and   Tresso   had   0.96%   of   the   identified   relevant  
market share.
2

Grade A office space in Bryanston/ Epson Downs node
8.The   Commission’s   investigation   revealed   that   the   merging   parties   would  
enjoy   a   combined   post   merger   market   share   of   8.49%.     According   to   the  
Commission this is unlikely to raise any competition concerns, as the market  
shares remain low. We agree with this conclusion. Pre­merger Growthpoint  
had a market share of 1.71% whilst Tresso had approximately 6.78% of the  
identified relevant market share.
Grade A office space in the Midrand/ Olifantfontein node
9. The Commission’s investigation revealed  that  the merging parties would  
enjoy   a   combined   post   merger   market   share   of   33.48%.   At   the   hearing   it  
turned out that although this was a high market share a further segmentation  
of the Midrand node could be made between the East and the West side of  
the highway.  Ms L Steynberg, a representative of Tresso, also indicated that  
rentals do differ from one side to the other side. She also indicated that there  
is a difference in the market demand for properties on the one side of the  
highway versus properties on the other side of the highway. If Ms Steynberg  
were   correct   in   this   assertion   there   would   be   no   overlap   as   the   merging  
parties properties in Midrand fall on either side of the highway.  We agree with  
the   Commission   that   since   the   accretion   in   the   market   is   only   1.6%   it   is  
unlikely to raise any competition concerns.       Pre­merger Growthpoint had a  
share of 31.87% and Tresso 1.6%.   It is therefore not necessary for us to  
determine whether the Midrand market can be further segmented between the  
East and West sides of the highway.
Grade A office space in Bellville/ Goodwood node
10.The Commission’s investigation revealed that in this market Growthpoint  
would have a combined market share of 4.1%.  According to the Commission

would have a combined market share of 4.1%.  According to the Commission  
no   market   data   was   available   for   the   Bellville   area,   it   only   determined   the  
parties market shares using data presented in the Goodwood area only.  The  
Commission   was   of   the   view   that   should   broader   regional   analysis  
incorporating the Bellville area be considered the market share is likely to be  
further   diluted.       According   to   the   Commission   no   serious   competition  
concerns are likely to arise in this market. We agree with the Commission’s  
conclusion, as this merger does not lead to a significant market share for the  
merging parties.
Industrial warehousing space in the Meadowdale   area
11.The Commission’s investigation revealed that the merging parties would  
have a combined post merger market share of 2.4%.  The Commission found  
that the market share would remain low and therefore unlikely to raise any  
3

serious   concerns.   We   agree   with   this   conclusion   because,   pre­merger  
Growthpoint   had   a   market   share   of   1.8%   and   Tresso   had   0.6%   of   the  
identified relevant market, therefore Tresso is not an effective competitor as  
its market share in the defined market is minimal.
Public interests
  
12.No public interest issues arise from this merger.
Conclusion
13.   Based   on   the   above,   the   transaction   will   not   result   in   a   substantial  
lessening   or   prevention   of   competition   in   the   identified   markets   and   is  
accordingly approved.
_______________ 26 May 2006
N Manoim Date
Concurring: U Bhoola and M Holden
For the Merging Parties: Ms I Gaigher (Jowell Glyn & Marais)
For the Commission: Seema Nunkoo and Mogalane Matsimela (Mergers and  
Acquisitions)
4