Clidet NO 694 (Pty) Ltd and CJ Petrow Chemicals (Pty) Ltd (39/LM/Apr07) [2007] ZACT 59 (10 September 2007)

70 Reportability
Competition Law

Brief Summary

Competition Law — Merger Approval — Unconditional approval of merger between Clidet 694 (Pty) Ltd and CJ Petrow Chemicals (Pty) Ltd — Clidet, a newly formed shelf company, acquires business assets of Petrow Chemicals, which operates in the supply of specialized chemical raw materials — No overlap in activities of merging firms; transaction results in vertical integration — Commission found no concerns regarding foreclosure of competitors or facilitation of collusion — Transaction does not raise public interest concerns and is approved unconditionally.

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: 39/LM/Apr07
In the matter between
Clidet NO 694 (Pty) Ltd Acquiring firm
And
CJ Petrow Chemicals (Pty) Ltd Target firm
Panel : D Lewis (Presiding Member); N Manoim (Tribunal Member); Y
Carrim (Tribunal Member).
Heard on : 19 June 2007
Decided on : 25 June 2007
Reasons Issued : 10 September 2007
REASONS FOR DECISION
Approval.
[1]. On 19 June 2007 the Competition Tribunal issued a Merger Clearance  Certificate  
approving   the   merger   between   Clidet   694   (Pty)Ltd   and   CJ   Petrow   Chemicals   (Pty)Ltd  
unconditionally. The reasons appear below.
Parties.
[2]. The   primary   acquiring   firm   is   Clidet   694   (Pty)   Ltd   (“Newco”).     Newco   is   a   newly  
formed shelf company and does not directly or indirectly control any firms. 1  
[3]. The   primary   target   firm   is   CJ   Petrow   Chemicals   (Pty)Ltd   (“Petrow   Chemicals”)   a  
company   incorporated   under   the   laws   of   South   Africa.   Petrow   Chemicals   is   indirectly  
controlled by Crizolda (Pty) Ltd (“Crizolda”) by virtue of its 88% shareholding in CJ Petrow  
Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Petrow Holdings”) which has a 95% stake in Petrow Chemicals.
Transaction
[4]. In terms of the proposed transaction Newco is acquiring the business assets and  
other interests of Petrow Chemicals.
Rationale for the Transaction
1 Newco is to be controlled by Standard Bank of South Africa (“SBSA”) which is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Standard Bank Group Limited (“SBG”). SBG is a listed company and
is not controlled by any entity.
1

[5]. The   acquiring   group   believes   that   the   acquisition   of   Petrow   Chemicals   will   be   an  
attractive investment opportunity which will yield attractive returns.
[6]. The target group sees the proposed transaction as a financially attractive opportunity  
to realize their respective investments in the primary target firm.
Parties’ Activities
[7]. Newco   is   a   newly   formed   shelf   company   and   does   not   provide   any   products   or  
services.2  SBG has recently acquired DairyBelle and through this acquisition is involved in  
the dairy sector.
[8]. Petrow   Chemicals   is   involved   in   the   importation,   purchase   and   distribution   of  
specialized   chemical   raw   materials   to   a   number   of   different   sectors   which   include  
pharmaceutical, neutraceutical, food, agricultural, bakery, dairy, confectionary, animal feed,  
paint, personal care, wine and cosmetics.
Relevant Market
[9]. According to the Commission there is no overlap in the activities of the merging firms,  
as   SBSA   does   not   have   interest   in   the   sector   where   Petrow   Chemicals   is   active.   The  
Commission however found that there is a vertical relationship between the activities of the  
merging firms in that Petrow Chemicals supplies DairyBelle with specialized raw chemicals  
which the latter uses as an input  in the manufacturing of dairy products. Accordingly  the  
Commission   concluded   that   the   transaction   affects   two   markets,   namely,   the   upstream  
market for the supply of specialized raw chemicals in which Petrow Chemicals is active and  
the downstream market for the manufacturing of dairy products in which DairyBelle is active.
Competition Analysis
[10]. The Commission found that the proposed transaction results in vertical integration of  
the activities of the merging parties. 
[11]. The   Commission   considered   whether   the   proposed   transaction   would   result   in

foreclosure of competitors either in the upstream or downstream markets, and whether the  
proposed   transaction   will   facilitate   collusion   between   competitors.   At   the   hearing   of   the  
matter, the Tribunal raised its concerns that the Commission had not conducted interviews  
with those competitors of DairyBelle which are also customers of Petrow Chemicals. 
[12]. The matter was postponed in order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to  
conduct   these   interviews.   The   Commission   filed   a   supplementary   report   to   its  
recommendations on 21 June 2007. In its supplementary report the Commission indicated  
that it had conducted interviews with Parmalat, Clover/Danone, Lancewood and Woodlands  
2 All SBG subsidiaries including SBSA are involved in the financial services sector. SBSA principal services  
include   retail   banking,   consumer   credit,   corporate   and   investment   banking,   investment   management   and   life  
insurance.
2

Diary,  all  competitors of Dairybelle,  who  were also customers of Petrow.    None  of these  
competitors had any concerns regarding the proposed transaction. The competitors viewed  
Crest   Chemicals,   Tate&   Lyle,   Protea   Chemicals   and   United   Foods   as   credible   and  
alternative suppliers of raw chemicals to the merged entity. 
 
[13]. With regard to the likelihood of the proposed transaction facilitating collusion, in the  
event that the upstream firm gains access to the information about its competitors from the  
downstream subsidiary,  the Commission found that this is unlikely to occur as, both the  
upstream and downstream markets are characterised by many firms. 
[14]. We  agree   with  the  Commission   that   no   foreclosure   collusion   concerns  arise   as  a  
result of the proposed transaction and that the transaction is unlikely to lead to a substantial  
lessening or prevention of competition.
Conclusion
[15]. The transaction does not raise any public interest concerns and the  transaction   is  
approved unconditionally.
___________________ 10 September 2007
Y. Carrim  Date
Tribunal Member
N Manoim and D Lewis concurring.
Tribunal Researcher :  J Ngobeni
For the merging parties :     Natalie   Browne   (Cliffe   Dekker)   and   Justin   Balkin   (Edward  
Nathan Sonneburgs)  
For the Commission :   Marlon   Dasarath   and   Makgale   Mohlala   (Mergers   and  
Acquisitions)
3