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
Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Your surname? Your choice: Constitutional Court’s judgment on spousal surnames

Your surname? Your choice: Constitutional Court’s judgment on spousal surnames

In a unanimous judgment delivered on 11 September 2025, the Constitutional Court held that the current surname-change framework as contained in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 are unconstitutional. The matter of Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 296/24) [2025] ZACC 19 (11 September 2025), as discussed in this article, was brought by two married couples who challenged a 1992 statute that barred husbands from assuming their wives’ surnames. The Department of Home Affairs had informed the applicants that the law, as it stands, does not allow a husband to assume a spouse’s surname after marriage.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest