Legal updates and opinions
News / News
When Mergers Merge: Guidelines on Indivisible Transactions
The Competition Commission (the Commission) has released its final guidelines on indivisible transactions (the Guidelines). These guidelines are crucial for understanding the Commission’s approach to determining whether multiple transactions can be notified and assessed as a single merger filing.
This is a significant development as it offers relief to parties who seek to avoid the burden of multiple merger notifications and the duplication of filing fees. The certainty provided by the Guidelines is of paramount importance to parties considering a transaction.
The Commission’s understanding of the indivisibility and interdependence of transactions is a cornerstone of the Guidelines. The Commission recognises that the indivisibility and interdependence of transactions are established when – in the context of two transactions – the implementation of one transaction would not be factually and/or legally possible in circumstances where the other transaction has not been implemented. For instance –
“Firm A purchases shares in Firm B who is merely holding it for a period of time while Firm C arranges financing in order to purchase the shares of Firm B from Firm A.”
Historically, the Tribunal has played a significant role in shaping the understanding of indivisible transactions. It has provided a clear explanation, stating that –
“the first leg is merely to facilitate the possibility of the second leg to happen. Legally and factually the two legs constitute parts of a single transaction.” [1]
The Guidelines, in line with the Commission’s approach, acknowledge both the factual and legal constructs of indivisibility. This recognition is crucial for the Commission’s assessment of whether multiple transactions can be considered a single merger. The Guidelines outline specific factors that the Commission will consider in determining indivisibility.
- The manner in which the transaction is structured;
- The relationship between the transactions;
- The interdependence of the transactions (whether one transaction could be carried out without the other transactions);
- The rationale underlying the multiple transactions;
- Whether the transactions will be implemented simultaneously under the same agreement;
- Whether there are multiple acquiring firms, under common shareholders/sellers and common acquiring firms;
- Whether there are multiple acquiring firms in terms of a single agreement pertaining to the same target firm (e.g. property transactions and consortium arrangements);
- Whether the transactions involve a similar competitive and public interest assessment and whether similar conditions are likely to be applicable to the transactions; and
- Whether the single notification is aimed at circumventing the applicable fees.
Given the unique nature of each transaction structure, the Commission retains the discretion to assess indivisibility on a case-by-case basis. This guideline is not exhaustive and does not include all factors that the Commission will consider in determining indivisibility. It’s important to note that the assessment of indivisibility is holistic and no single factor is determinative.
Those contemplating multiple transactions should take note of the Guidelines when structuring them, in the interest of a seamless and expedited merger notification process. In instances where parties wish to rely on the argument that separate transaction are indivisible and, therefore, require only one merger notification and one filing fee, the Guidelines ought to provide clear direction.
“By the powers vested in me, I now declare these factually and legally indivisible transactions ‘a single merger'”.
– the Commission
[1] Crown Gold Recoveries (Pty) Ltd and Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited / Khumo Bathong Holdings (Pty) Ltd (31/LM/May02) [2002] ZACT 38 (4 June 2002). t
Latest News
Allegations of Ethnic Discrimination Require Evidence: the Sagan Principle
and Isabella Keeves - Candidate Attorney In 1979 science communicator and physicist Carl Sagan wrote in his book Broca's Brain [...]
The Clock Is Ticking: Labour Disputes and the Perils of Miscalculating Timeframes
The recent Labour Court decision in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v SAMWU obo Bukula and Others (PR174/2023) provides a sobering [...]
FICA: Proposed changes to Public Compliance Communication 50 and Directive 3 previously issued by the Financial Intelligence Centre
by Sandiso Dhlomo, Associate and Nhlonipho Mthembu, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Tracy Lee Janse van Rensburg On 14 March 2025, [...]
Proposed R100 Billion Transformation Fund Will Have Significant Implications For Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (“Bbbee”) Regulation In South Africa
On 19 March 2025, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition ("DTIC") issued a draft Transformation Fund Concept Document for [...]
Sorry Not Sorry
and Mike Searle, Candidate Attorney In the recent Labour Court decision of Standard Bank Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Dlamini [...]
Discrimination – it’s not unfair when its fair
In a notable judgment delivered on 6 November 2024, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Passenger Rail Agency of South [...]