Category: MergerMania

Breaking: CCC withdraws its recent Merger Practice Note

Posted on by Editor

An AAT-exclusive first report on this — somewhat stunning — development follows below. More details to be published once they become available in a new post…

On August 8th, 2022, the CCC officially announced the formal withdrawal of its Practice Note No. 1 of 2021, which had clarified what it meant for a party to “operate” in the COMESA common market. The announcement mentions that it will (soon? how soon?) be replaced with a revised Practice Note — a somewhat unusual step, in our view, as the revised document could have, or should have, been published simultaneously with the withdrawal of the old one. Otherwise, in the “interim of the void,” legal practitioners and commercial parties evaluating M&A ramifications in the COMESA region will be left with no additional guidance outside the bloc’s basic Competition Regulations and Rules.

Of note, “this clarifying policy document did not stem from the era of Dr. Mwemba’s predecessor (CCC 1.0 as we are wont to call it), but it was already released under Willard’s aegis as then-interim director of the agency,” observes Andreas Stargard, a competition lawyer at Primerio Ltd. He continues: “Therefore, we cannot ascribe this most recent abdication to a change in personnel or agency-leadership philosophy, but rather external factors, such as — perhaps — the apparently numerous inquiries the CCC still received even after implementation of the Note.”

To remind our readers, we had previously reported on AAT as to this (now rescinded) note as follows (Feb. 11, 2021):

The COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) issued new guidance today in relation to its application of previously ambiguous and potentially self-contradictory merger-notification rules under the supra-national COMESA regime. As Andreas Stargard, a competition practitioner with Primerio notes:

“This new Practice Note issued by Dr. Mwemba is an extremely welcome step in clarifying when to notify M&A deals to the COMESA authorities. Specifically, it clears up the confusion as to the meaning of the term ‘to operate’ within the Common Market.

Prior conflicts between the 3 operative documents (the ‘Rules’, ‘Guidelines’, and the ‘Regulations’) had become untenable for practitioners to continue without clear guidance from the CCC, which we have now received. I applaud the Commission for taking this important step in the right direction, aligning its merger procedure with the principles of established best-practice jurisdictions such as the European Union.”

Revisiting the Burger King prohibition: [Unintended] Consequences & [Possible] Reconsideration

Posted on by Editor

By Joshua Eveleigh

On the 1 June 2021, the South African Competition Commission (SACC) released its media statement announcing the prohibition of ECP Africa’s proposed acquisition of Burger King (South Africa) and Grand Foods Meat Plant Pty (Ltd) from Grand Parade Investments.   AAT published a note on this precedent-setting decision here.

Despite finding that the acquisition would not have any likely effect of substantially lessening or preventing competition, the transaction was prohibited as it would result in the merged entity having no ownership by historically disadvantaged persons (HDPs) and workers. In its media statement, the SACC states that both Burger King SA and Grand Foods Meat Plant form part of an empowering entity in which HDP’s have 68% ownership. This ownership stake would decrease to 0% if the transaction were to be approved. In this regard, Tembinkosi Bonakele, chairperson of the SACC, states:

“You had an entity that had quite an impressive transformation profile, and all of that was going to disappear at the stroke of a pen with this transaction.”

Unsurprisingly, Grand Parade Investments, as well as the general public, have responded to the SACC’s decision with discontent.

The topical concerns regarding the prohibition of the acquisition include:

  1. The unintended, prejudicial impact upon black shareholders of sellers / target companies; and
  2. The equally detrimental deterrence of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Republic of South Africa.

i. Harm to HDP shareholders

Grand Parade Investments had supposedly been attempting to sell Burger King and Grand Foods Meat Plant for a period of 18 months in order to settle debts and pay dividends to its black shareholders, whom had reportedly not received dividends for a number of years. Furthermore, the shareholders would incur even greater harm upon the SACC’s media statement as Grand Parade Investments share price would plummet by 10%, making future dividend payouts ever less likely.

Bonakele argues that the Competition Act cannot waiver in its goal of transformation purely because of the prejudicial impact that a decision may have on individuals.

“This is about the system, it is not about individual shareholders. We are not really concerned about the immediate impact on Joe Soap today, that’s not the criteria.”

ii. Deterring FDI

The decision of the SACC raises varying concerns for foreign investors, and understandably so. The key concerns can be encapsulated into the following: certainty, timing and costs.

Firstly, merger review is subject to ever-evolving standards. In this regard, foreign investors cannot approach a merger with full certainty as to whether it will be approved or not. Moreover, continually changing standards presents increased opportunities of opposition from competition authorities which furthers investor uncertainty. Secondly, subsequent to changing standards and increased opposition, the timing of proposed mergers is significantly lengthened. Lastly, the imposition of non-competition conditions on transactions incurs significant costs on the burden of investors.

These principles of certainty, timing and costs can be considered as the essential elements of a sound merger regime. Ultimately, the SACC’s decision of prohibition strikes at the balance of South Africa’s merger regime by introducing great uncertainty, prolonged timing and greater costs  – all of which present themselves as significant areas of concern for foreign investors.

In response to these FDI concerns, Bonakele states that South Africa’s democratic sustainability is of paramount importance and that foreign investors must consider the long-term effects that exclusionary investments would have on the Republic, particularly in regard to transformation and empowerment:

“But it’s not like empowerment imperatives are less important than FDI.”

A potential for reconsideration?

A window for reconsideration of the proposed acquisition presents itself where the merging parties present a better offering of HDP ownership. Bonakele suggests that this is potentially on the table as the parties to the agreement have continued engagement despite the SACC’s decision.

Therefore, the proposed acquisition may eventually find approval where ECP Africa and Grand Parade Investments agree on an improved HDP empowerment plan, of which the SACC is satisfied.

Image

Conclusion

In essence, the SACC’s decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition of Burger King (South Africa) and Grand Foods Meat Plant by ECP Africa has had prejudicial effects upon the seller’s black shareholders.

Further, the decision presents concern for foreign direct investment by striking at the essential elements of a sound merger regime, namely: certainty, timing and costs.

However, the chairperson of the SACC has now noted that the SACC may change its initial decision upon the improvement of empowerment considerations between the parties to the transaction.

https://africanantitrust.com/2021/06/03/south-africa-burger-king-acquisition-prohibited-purely-on-public-interest-grounds-in-precedent-setting-decision/

Precedent-Setting Decision: Burger King Acquisition Prohibited Purely on Public Interest Grounds

Posted on by Editor

By Charl van der Merwe

The South African Competition Commission (SACC) made headlines with its first prohibition of an intermediate merger that was based solely on public-interest grounds.

Emerging Capital Partners (ECP), a private equity firm founded in the US, was to acquire all Burger King assets from South African Grand Parade Investments, a South African majority black owned entity. 

The SACC, while finding that the proposed transaction will have no actual impact on competition, prohibited the transaction on the basis that the transaction will have a substantial negative effect on “the promotion of greater spread of ownership, in particular to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons” (HDPs).

The SACC found that the merger would lead to a 68% reduction in the shareholding of HDPs in the target entity.

As John Oxenham, director at Primerio points out, “public interest” considerations have long been a feature of competition law in South Africa, particularly in relation to merger control. In this regard, mergers, which may otherwise be deemed problematic, could be ‘justified’ on public interest grounds. Public interest, while initially limited to employment, was first informally expanded through notable mergers such as Walmart/Massmart (2011) and AB Inbev/SAB (2016) where public interest conditions were imposed related to empowerment and ownership, through agreement by the merging parties.

The Competition Amendment Act, which largely became effective in 2019, formally expanded the recognised public-interest factors contain in Section 12A(3) of the Competition Act to include the “promotion of a greater spread of ownership, in particular to increase the levels of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons and workers in firms in the market”. Further, the public-interest element was elevated to a separate and self-standing assessment, which must be assessed as an integral part of the merger assessment.

While the Competition Act, as amended, has made provision for mergers to be assessed and prohibited on pure public interest grounds since July 2019, the Burger King merger is the first merger to be prohibited on this basis.

SACC Commissioner, Tembinkosi Bonakele noted that the SACC had no choice but to recommend that the merger be prohibited as, clearly, the merger would result in a reduction of HDP ownership from 68% to 0%, which the SACC believes is substantial. This concern was raised with the merging parties, who were unable to address the concern in a suitable manner.

Regarding the broader impacts of the decision on investment and merger control in South Africa, Bonakele noted that the SACC is merely a statutory agency obliged to impose the law as it currently stands and, according to the Bonakele, there is no uncertainty regarding the transformation objectives which had been introduced to the Competition Act. The SACC is clear on its mandate in terms of the Competition Act, as amended, and will continue to implement such mandate.

The legal basis for the decision is clear, however, as is the case with any new legislation, implementation thereof less so. At the time of the enactment of the amendments to the Competition Act, it was well recognised that the practical implementation of these provisions will be critical and that it may lead to significant unintended consequences – including adverse effects on consumer welfare and even broader public interest. Primerio director, Michael-James Currie points out that, ironically, HDP-owned target firms might be negatively prejudiced by this criterion, as the pool of potential buyers is limited (and hence the value) if non-black owned firms are not able to successful acquire the target’s business.

It is not clear, at this stage, what the assessment in the Burger King merger entailed, what evidence was put forward by the parties and what the relevant counterfactual may have been. It is also not clear whether the transaction presented pro-competitive elements which outweigh the adverse effect on public interest – similar to what is required in terms of public interest where a merger may have an adverse impact on competition. The SACC confirmed, however, that the transaction was ultimately prohibited after ECP failed to adhere to requests to proffer conditions relating to shareholding and empowerment.

The SACC has the power to assess and prohibit intermediate mergers. Accordingly, the SACC’s prohibition can only be challenged by way of a request for consideration, to be filed by the merging parties, to the South African Competition Tribunal. The SACC opined, however, that unless the acquiring firm is prepared to make concession to remedy the public interest concerns, the decision is unlikely to be overturned.

Grand Parade has been vocal in its dissatisfaction of the prohibition. The matter will be highly contested, and it is not uncommon for transactions to be approved on a request for consideration to the Tribunal.  Furthermore, any decision by the Tribunal is likely to be taken on appeal to the Competition Appeal Court and likely also the Constitutional Court.

The Burger King decision, regardless of its eventual outcome, will leave a lasting precedent and shape merger control proceedings in South Africa going forward.

M&A Breaking News: Regional Antitrust Enforcer Aligns Merger Rule with European Union Principles

Posted on by Editor

BREAKING NEWS: The COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) issued new guidance today in relation to its application of previously ambiguous and potentially self-contradictory merger-notification rules under the supra-national COMESA regime. As Andreas Stargard, a competition practitioner with Primerio notes:

“This new Practice Note issued by Dr. Mwemba is an extremely welcome step in clarifying when to notify M&A deals to the COMESA authorities. Specifically, it clears up the confusion as to the meaning of the term ‘to operate’ within the Common Market.

Prior conflicts between the 3 operative documents (the ‘Rules’, ‘Guidelines’, and the ‘Regulations’) had become untenable for practitioners to continue without clear guidance from the CCC, which we have now received. I applaud the Commission for taking this important step in the right direction, aligning its merger procedure with the principles of established best-practice jurisdictions such as the European Union.”

The full text of the new Guidance is as follows:

PRACTICE NOTE ON THE COMMISSION’S APPLICATION OF THE TERM “OPERATE” UNDER THE COMESA COMPETITION REGULATIONS AND THE “APPLICATION OF RULE 4 OF THE RULES ON THE DETERMINATION OF MERGER NOTIFICATION THRESHOLDS AND METHOD OF CALCULATION”

February 11, 2021

CCC – MER – Practice Note 1 of 2021

The COMESA Competition Commission (the “Commission”), having received several queries from merging parties and their legal representatives in relation to the application of certain merger control rules, hereby issues this practice note on its application of the term “operate” under the COMESA Competition Regulations, 2004 (the “Regulations”) and the COMESA Competition Rules, 2004 (the “Rules”) and its approach to the application of Rule 4 of the Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds and Method of Calculation (the “Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds”).

  1. Application of the Term “Operate”

Article 23 of the Regulations establishes the jurisdiction of the Commission to assess cross-border mergers where the term “operate” is central to the application of Article 23 of the Regulations which, inter alia, applies where “…both the acquiring firm and target firm or either the acquiring firm or target firm operate in two or more Member States…”.

The Regulations have not defined the term operate. However, paragraph 3.9 of the COMESA Merger Assessment Guidelines of 2014 (the “Merger Guidelines”) states that an undertaking is considered to operate in a Member State for purposes of Article 23 (3)(a) of the Regulations if its operations in that Member State are substantial enough that a merger can contribute to an appreciable effect on trade between Member States and restrict competition in COMESA. Further, the Merger Guidelines state that “…an undertaking operates in a Member State if its annual turnover or value of assets in that Member State exceeds US$ 5 million…”.

It should be noted that at the time the Merger Guidelines became applicable, the prescribed merger notification thresholds envisaged under Article 23(3)(b) of the Regulation, were set at US$ 0. This effectively meant that all merger transactions satisfying the regional dimension requirement of Article 23 (3)(a) of the Regulations were required to be notified to the Commission, irrespective of the magnitude of the merging parties’ operations in the Common Market. In line with the Regulations’ objectives, the Commission sought to only capture those mergers likely to affect trade between Member States and restrict competition in the Common Market. As a result, the Merger Guidelines attached a quantitative definition to the term ‘operate’, as meaning the turnover or value of asset in a Member State to be at least US$ 5 million.

All stakeholders are hereby informed that following the enactment of the Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds, the definition of ‘operate’ under paragraph 3.9 of the Merger Guidelines in no longer applicable as the Rules take precedence over the Guidelines. In view of this, paragraph 3.9 of the Guidelines has been rendered ineffective with the coming into force of Rule 4 of the Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds. Therefore, for purposes of merger notification in line with Article 23 of the Regulations, all stakeholders should be referring to Rule 4 of the Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds which stipulates that:

 “Any merger where both the acquiring firm and target firm, or either the acquiring or the target firm, operate in two or more Member States, shall be notifiable if:

  1. the combined annual turnover or combined value of assets, whichever is higher in the Common Market of all parties to a merger equals to or exceeds US$50 million; and
  2. the annual turnover or value of assets, whichever is higher, in the Common Market of each of at least two of the parties to a merger equals or exceeds US$10 million, unless each of the parties to a merger achieves at least two-thirds of its aggregate turnover or assets in the Common Market within one and the same Member State.”

 2.  Application of Rule 4 of the Rules on the Determination of Merger Notification Thresholds

Rule 4 applies to merger transactions that satisfy both the “Regional Dimension” and “Notification Thresholds” requirements under Article 23 of the Regulations. Rule 4 is cumulative and must be satisfied entirely before a merger is notified to the Commission. Rule 4 is therefore applied as follows:

Firstly, Regional Dimension must be satisfied. This is contained in the chapeau of Rule 4 which requires the merging parties to operate in at least two COMESA Member States. Further, it gives three alternative scenarios under which merging parties can operate in Member States namely:

  1. Both the acquiring firm and target firm can operate in at least two Member States;
  2. The acquiring firm can operate in at least two Member States, while the target firm can operate only in one Member State; or
  3. The target firm can operate in at least two Member States, while the acquiring firm can operate only in one Member State.

Regional Dimension will therefore be met once any of the three scenarios is satisfied and if they are, the next step is to confirm whether Rule 4(a) is satisfied. Rule 4(a) must be satisfied by confirming that either the combined annual turnover or combined annual assets in the Common Market of all the parties to the merger equals to at least US$ 50 million. The option to use combined annual turnover or combined annual asset shall depend on the higher amount of the two total values.

Assuming the Regional Dimension and Rule 4(a) is satisfied, the next step is to confirm whether the merging parties satisfy Rule 4(b). To satisfy Rule 4(b), it should be demonstrated that the annual turnover or annual asset, whichever is higher, of each of at least two of the parties in the Common Market is at least US$ 10 million. Whether to use annual turnover or annual asset depends on the higher of the two. It should also depend on the measure (turnover or asset) used in Rule 4(a).

As an illustration, assume annual combined turnover is higher than annual combined asset under Rule 4(a). This shall mean annual combined turnover will be adopted under Rule 4(a). Therefore, proceeding to Rule 4(b) shall mean confirming whether the annual turnover of each of at least two of the parties in the Common Market is at least US$ 10 million.

The final step in applying Rule 4 is to confirm if the 2/3 exemption rule holds. Given that Rule 4 must be applied in its entirety, the 2/3 exemption rule must also be read in conjunction with the preceding limbs in establishing the thresholds i.e. Rule 4(a) and Rule 4(b). For both the collective and individual thresholds requirements under Rule 4(a) and 4(b), it is the higher value of the turnover derived or asset value held which must be considered. In this regard, the 2/3 rule is meant to apply once the higher value has been established. It would be contrary to the principles and spirit of the 2/3 rule to rely on a different financial criterion to exempt a notification than the criterion used to establish a notification requirement under first two limbs of Rule 4.

COMESA sees slight uptick in merger notifications

Posted on by Editor

Merger filings still dither, but YTD numbers now tentatively promise to exceed FY2015

Making sense of the COMESA Competition Commission’s merger notification site is no  easy undertaking.  The perplexing nature of its case-numbering system mirrors perhaps only the level of confusion surrounding the CCC’s original merger threshold and notification-fee guidelines (e.g., see here on that topic).

As we pointed out here, the merger statistics (as they had been released as of January 2016) for 2015 were disappointingly low.  In today’s post, please note that we are upgrading those numbers, however, to reflect additional material now made available on the official CCC web resource, reflecting 3 additional filings, bringing the year-end total for FY2015 to 18.  Three of those were “Phase 2” cases.  In addition, according to the CCC, there were 3 supplemental cases in which “Comfort Letters” were issued to the parties.

For year-to-date 2016 statistics, the numbers look analogous, albeit somewhat higher than the 2015 slump — that is to say, still diminished from the 2013-2014 height of COMESA ‘mergermania’, during which (mostly international) counsel took the confusion surrounding the CCC notification thresholds to heart and erred on the side of caution (and more fees), advising clients to notify rather than not to (65 in the 2 years), or to seek Comfort Letters, which also were issued in record numbers (19 total for the 2-year period)…   With that said, the agency is now up to 16 merger cases, with 2 Second-Phase matters on deck.

AAT 2016 September mergermania statistics
Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices (using educated inferences where the original CCC case numbers, dates and/or descriptions lack intelligibility; note that 2013-14 statistics only reflect actual filings made available online and not the official statistics issued by the CCC of 21 and 43, respectively)                                                                         (c) AfricanAntitrust.com

COMESA acknowledges low merger filing stats

Posted on by Editor

2015 figures plummet 66% year-over-year

Going from 44 notifications in 2014 to 15 filings last year, the Competition Commission of the COMESA common-market area has seen a dramatic decline in merger filings.

Says Andreas Stargard, a competition lawyer with Africa advisory firm Pr1merio:

“These statistics are akin to the agency’s inaugural year — a slump that can only be explained by one of two likely underlying rationales:

Andreas Stargard, editor
A. Stargard

(1) Potential filers have begun to follow widespread advice from legal counsel that effectively admonishes would-be notifying parties not to do so until COMESA establishes a more robust enforcement and notification regime; or (2) — and this is the CCC’s preferred official explanation — the increased filing thresholds as of March 2015 caused fewer transactions to be caught in the mandatory filing net of the regulator.”

Of further concern, Stargard notes, is that the supporting merger documents made available by the CCC do not reflect the purported official statistics.  This fact is reflected in the MergerMania article published on AAT last August..  “For each and every one of the 15 filings identified by the Commission in its official statement, we should be able to see the underlying SOM [statement of merger] and the concomitant Decision — ideally published contemporaneously with the occurrence of each relevant event,” he says.  “Unfortunately, on the CCC merger site, two merger filings are missing entirely (numbers 9 and 10), and the others are commonly published many months after the public-comment deadline for the transactions has long expired.”

To date, a parsing of the (available) 2015 statistics shows that 3 of 15 cases actually went into Phase Two review, Stargard observes.  “This would generally imply a more serious concern raised by the authority in terms of the effect on competition post-merger.  Here, however, it is quite unclear what the potential threat to competition in, for example, a purely private-equity deal would be.  The official decision (no. 15, from November 2015) fails to even hint at a possible threat — as one would commonly expect from a PE to PE transaction, which usually raises little to no antitrust eyebrows…”

Our updated AAT COMESA MergerMania statistics are therefore as follows (again noting the fact that AAT bases its count on only the official, published and available merger documents, instead of relying on mere press release-based summaries published by the CCC).  We also note that to date, 2016 has seen one “merger inquiry notice,” namely of the Dutch Yara / Zambian Greenbelt fertiliser deal.  The public-comment period for that transaction expires on January 22, 2016.

Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices
Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices

The full text of the COMESA release follows below:

During the year 2015, the Commission assessed and cleared 15 merger transactions. The transactions involved sectors such as insurance, food additives, water treatment, agro-chemical, banking, telecommunication, non alcohol-ic beverage, publishing, packaging and retail. The Commission handled 12 merger notifications in the year 2013 and 44 merger notifications in the year 2014. The Pie Chart below shows the number of mergers handled by the Commission from inception to date.

COMESA merger statistics (official graphic)

As shown in the pie chart the Commission dealt with more mergers in 2014 as compared to 2013 but this trend has gone down in 2015. This trend may be attributed to the supposition that in 2013, the Commission had just commenced operations and therefore some stakeholders were not immediately aware of its existence and operations. By 2014, most stake-holders had become aware of the Commission and its operations, hence the significant increase in the number of mergers notified. The significant reduction in 2015 can be attributed to the supposition that the merger notification thresholds approved by the Council of Ministers on 26 March 2015 which has resulted in smaller mergers escaping the notification. Before 26 March 2015, the merger notification thresholds were Zero hence all mergers were notifiable regardless of size.

MergerMania update: COMESA CCC clears 5 notified mergers

Posted on by andreasstargard

COMESA old flag color

COMESA CCC clears 5 notified mergers

At their July 29, 2015 meeting, COMESA Competition Commissioners Chikankheni, Langa, and Okilangole rendered decisions in five merger cases notified earlier in the spring.  The affected sectors are: Packaging (Nampak), Retail (Steinhoff), Academic Publishing (Springer Verlag), Telecom Towers (Eaton Towers), and Non-Alcoholic Beverages (Coca-Cola).

Ethos/Nampak MER/03/01/2015 SOM/8/2015 Decision/10/2015  29/07/2015
Steinhoff/Pepkor MER/03/02/2015 SOM/7/2015 Decision/9/2015  29/07/2015
Holtzbrinck PG/ Springer Science MER/04/06/2015 SOM/6/2015 Decision/8/2015  29/07/2015
Eaton Towers/ Kenya, Malawi, Uganda Towers MER/04/05/2015 SOM/5/2015 Decision/7/2015 29/07/2015
Coca-Cola BAL/ Coca-Cola SABCO MER/04/07/2015 SOM/4/2015 Decision/6/2015 29/07/2015

Our statistics (while discrepant with those identified by COMESA head of mergers Mr. Willard Mwemba) show the following numbers for COMESA notifications to date:

COMESA MergerMania July 2015
Number of merger notifications based on CCC-published notices

MergerMania: Are CCC notifications picking up pace unnoticed?

Posted on by andreasstargard
COMESA Competition Commission logo

COMESA Merger Mania

To answer our rhetorical question in the title above: We don’t believe so.  For the merger junkies among our readership, here is AAT’s latest instalment of “COMESA MergerMania” — AfricanAntitrust’s occasional look at merger matters reviewed by the young multi-jurisdictional competition enforcers in south/eastern Africa.  (To see our last post on COMESA merger statistics, click here).

COMESA publishes new Merger Filings, still fails to identify dates thereof

As nobody else seems to be doing this, let us compile the latest news in merger notifications to the COMESA Competition Commission.  Prior to doing so, however, we observe one item of utility and basic house-keeping etiquette, which we hope will be heeded in future official releases by the agency: Please note the dates of (and on the) documents being issued.  Using the date as a ‘case ID’ is insufficient in our view — the CCC’s current PDF pronouncements invariably remain un-dated, a practice which AAT deplores and which simply does not conform to international business (or government) standards.  So: please date your press releases, opinions, decisions, and notifications on the documents themselves.

We observe that the matters below have not yet been assigned final “case numbers” (at least not publicly) in the style typical of the CCC decisions in the past, namely sequential numbers per year, as they are currently under investigation and have not yet been decided.

We also note that one notification in particular appears to have been retroactively made in 2014, even though it is identified as merger no. 3 of 2015 (Gateway), a peculiarity we cannot currently explain.  Likewise, AAT wonders what the “44” stands for in its case ID (“12/44/2014”), we surmise it’s a typo and should be “14” instead.

Internal Case ID Statement of Merger
Holtzbrinck PG/ Springer Science MER/04/06/2015 SOM/6/2015
Eaton Towers/ Kenya, Malawi, Uganda Towers MER/04/05/2015 SOM/5/2015
Coca-Cola BAL/ Coca-Cola SABCO MER/04/07/2015 SOM/4/2015
Gateway/Pan Africa MER/12/44/2014 SOM/3/2015
Old Mutual/UAP MER/03/04/2015 SOM/2/2015
Zamanita /Cargill MER/03/03/2015 SOM/1//2015

Which brings us to the bi-monthly…

AAT COMESA Merger Statistics Roundup

COMESA Merger Statistics as of July 2015
COMESA Merger Statistics as of July 2015 (source: AAT)