The Competition Commission is also an enforcer of BEE

Companies showing substantial growth, are likely to attract the interest of investors who may want to acquire the company. Should a company be black-owned and such ownership be dramatically affected by an acquisition, such acquisition my run the risk of being blocked by the Competition Commission.

When the Competition Commission or Competition Tribunal has to consider whether a merger or acquistion is justifiable and in the public interest, both the Competition Commission and Competition Tribunal will also consider whether historically disadvantaged persons will be part of the entity’s ownership following the merger.  

The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission (B-BBEE Commission) and the Competition Commission have established a joint working committee in which the Competition Commission can consult with the B-BBEE Commission to advise on whether a merger aligns with the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act as well as other applicable legislation and policies. This ensures that the BEE impact of any merger or acquisition is always considered.

In a recent review of a proposed merger in South Africa, the Competition Commission had prohibited a merger from continuing on the basis that the BEE-shareholding of the entity that would have been acquired, would drop from 68% to 0%, effectively removing all BEE shareholding from the merged entity. 

Given the danger of a merger or acquistion being blocked, it would certainly be worthwhile to consider and discuss options with a new investor regarding the BEE position of the company following the transaction if necessary, it may even be worthwhile to go so far as to approach the B-BBEE Commission to obtain their views on how to proceed and what options would meet their approval, rather than risk the transaction being prohibited. 

February 8, 2022
Slip and trip: who is liable?

Slip and trip: who is liable?

With a growing number of ‘slip and trip’ cases being referred to our courts, property owners must understand what they need to do to avoid liability for injuries sustained on their property. In this article, we examine the recent case of Ngwenya vs Accelerate Property Fund (2022/13159) [2024] ZAGPJHC 880 to explore the latest rulings regarding property owner liability.

Developers caught off guard with sectional title costs

Developers caught off guard with sectional title costs

In the recent case of Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited v Trustees of Club Kerkira Body Corporate and Others (D11451/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 40, the KZN High Court had to clarify the position as to whether the holder of a real right of extension (in this case the developer) had a responsibility to contribute towards the maintenance costs of the sectional title scheme.

See no evil, speak no evil: reporting misconduct

See no evil, speak no evil: reporting misconduct

Enforcing workplace rules frequently relies on employees reporting misconduct that they have witnessed by fellow employees to their employer. This is vital for maintaining workplace discipline and ensuring that employees adhere to the employer’s rules. But what is the worst that can happen to an employee who elects to protect a fellow employee by keeping quiet about their transgressions?

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest