Contact
Doing Business in South Africa | M&A | Merger | Mergers & Acquisitions

Shining success in pivotal IT sector merger

In a landmark transaction that promises to redefine the landscape of South Africa’s information technology and telecommunications sector, the M&A Team of PH Attorneys played a crucial role in facilitating the acquisition of a leading cyber security software firm by a multinational enterprise software procurement company. This deal not only marks a significant milestone for both firms involved but also holds implications for the broader African market.

The excitement sparked by QBS Technology Group’s acquisition of Maxtec Peripherals has been the topic of considerable media attention and discussion throughout the cybersecurity distribution industry. This strategic move aligns with QBS Technology Group’s expansion strategy within the META (Middle East, Turkey, and Africa) region, signalling their commitment to bolstering global presence and tapping into emerging markets with promising potential.

The M&A Team of PH Attorneys, led by Johnny Davis, Luhann Prinsloo and Dr Candice Reynders helped navigate the complexities of the deal. The team, given their extensive M&A, competition, tax and regulatory expertise, assisted with strategic guidance and managed deal regulatory compliance as well as comprehensive transaction due diligence. The team also played a strong transaction advisory role throughout, ensuring that cradle to grave, all the i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

Steven Turner, Chief Legal Officer from QBS Technology Group, expressed their satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “We were really pleased with the dedication, tenacity, and know-how demonstrated by the team at PH during our recent competition instruction. The matter was highly complex, difficult to execute, and full of hurdles, but the team at PH approached it in a pragmatic manner with good humour and timely commercial advice where required.”


Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

May 8, 2024
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest