COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: LM012APR22
In the matter between:
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. Acquiring Firm
and
Bollore Africa Logistics SAS. Target Firm
Approval
[1] On 15 July 2022, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) unconditionally approved
the large merger wherein SAS Shipping Agencies Services Sárl (“SAS Lux”)
intends to acquire the entire issued share capital of Bolloré Africa Logistics SAS
(“BAL”). Post-merger, SAS Lux will solely control BAL.
Panel : Imraan I. Valodia (Presiding Member)
: Andiswa Ndoni (Tribunal Panel Member)
: Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Panel Member)
Heard on : 15 July 2022
Order issued on : 15 July 2022
Reasons issued on : 25 July 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
Parties to the transaction and their activities
Primary acquiring firm
[2] The primary acquiring firm is SAS Lux, a wholly owned subsidiary of
[3] is in turn controlled by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company
S.A. (“MSC”)
[4] MSC is in turn controlled by Mediterranean Shipping Company Holding S.A.
(“MSC Holding SA”), which is the holding company of the MSC Group.
[5] In South Africa, MSC Holding SA indirectly controls
[6]
[7] The acquiring firm, SAS Lux, including MSC South Africa and all its subsidiaries
will henceforth be referred to as the “Acquiring Group”.
[8] The Acquiring Group provides, at worldwide level, maritime transport, and
containerized liner shipping services. The Acquiring Group is also active in
logistics (warehousing and distribution, off-dock storage, contract logistics
projects, specialized reefer services, etc.) as well as in rail, inland waterway, and
road transport.
Primary target firm
[9] The primary target firm is BAL 2, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bolloré SE
(“Seller”)
[10] BAL is active in transport and logistics services mainly in the African continent.
It is currently integrated within the Seller’s Transport and Logistics Division.
[11] The target firm, BAL, and all its subsidiaries will henceforth be referred to as the
“Target Firm”.
Proposed transaction and rationale
Transaction
[12] In terms of the proposed transaction, the Acquiring Group will acquire the entire
issued share capital and voting rights of the Target Firm from the Seller. Post-
merger, the Acquiring Group will solely control the Target Firm.
Rationale
[13]
[14]
Relevant market and impact on competition
[15] The Competition Commission (“the Commission”) assessed the (i) the national
market for the provision of contract logistics 3 and (ii) the national market for the
provision of inland road transportation4.
[16] The Commission further considered the merger within (iii) the upstream market
for the provision of all container liner shipping services into/from South Africa 5
and (iv) the downstream national market for the provision of freight forwarding
services6.
[17] Based on the Commission’s competitive assessment, the activities of the
merging parties overlap horizontally in Contract Logistics Services and Inland
Transport Services.
[18] The activities of the merging parties further overlap vertically as the Target Firm
is active in the market of Sea Freight Forwarding Services and the Acquiring
Group is active in the market for Deep-sea Container Liner Shipping.
Input foreclosure
[19] The Commission found that MSC accounts for approximately of the
upstream markets for the supply of all containerized cargo imported/exported
into/from South Africa.
3 The Commission found that the merged entity will account for % of the national market for Contract
logistics, with a market share accretion of
4 The Commission found that the merged entity will account for less than of the broad market for the
provision of inland road transport, with a market share accretion of
5 Regarding the upstream national market for the provision of container shipping liner services, the
Commission found that the Acquiring Group will account for % of the market.
6 The Commission found that the target firm accounts for of the national market for the provision
of freight forwarding services.
[20] Further to the above, MSC faces competition from Maersk ( and
collective comprised of ONE CMA ), Hapa Lloyd ) and many
other container shipping companies.
[21] The Commission is of the view that it is unlikely that the merged entity can
recoup lost revenues from a self-dealing strategy.
Customer foreclosure
[22] The Commission is of the view that the proposed transaction is unlikely to lead
to a strategy of customer foreclosure as BAL’s share of the downstream freight
forwarding services is less than
[23] Based on the above, the Commission is of the view that the proposed transaction
is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.
[24] When assessing the proposed transaction, the Tribunal did not find any
evidence suggesting that that the relevant market should be broader than the
one defined above.
Relevant counterfactual
[25] The Tribunal assessed the prospects for competition with the proposed
transaction against the competitive status quo without the proposed transaction.
Based on the above evidence, it concluded that there are no competitive
concerns raised.
[26] No third parties raised concerns regarding the effects of the proposed
transaction on competition.
[27] The Tribunal concludes that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially
prevent or lessen competition in any market.
Public interest
Effect on employment
[28] The Commission engaged with the merging parties and respective employee
representatives of the merging parties who submitted that the proposed
transaction will not give rise to any retrenchments in South Africa.
[29] We agree with the Commission’s findings that the proposed transaction is
unlikely to have a negative impact on employment in South Africa.
Effect on the spread of ownership
[30] The merging parties submitted that although none of the MSC Group’s entities
within South Africa (including SAS Lux) have any B-BBEE ownership, the
merging parties intend that BAL will continue to operate as a standalone entity
and therefore the organizational structure of the BAL entities in South Africa,
being the entity that is 51% black owned, will not change post-merger.
[31] The Commission found that the proposed transaction raised no further public
interest concerns, and the Tribunal concurs.
Conclusion
[32] Considering the above, The Tribunal conclude that the proposed transaction is
unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.
25 July 2022
Prof. Imraan I. Valodia Date
Concurring: Ms Fiona Tregenna and Ms Andiswa Ndoni
Tribunal case manager : Baneng Naape
For the merging parties : Aidan Scallan and Justin Balkin of Edward
Nathan Sonnenbergs Attorneys
For the Commission : Rakgole Mokolo and Grashum Mutizwa