South Africa: Competition Tribunal Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Competition Tribunal >> 2011 >> [2011] ZACT 103

| Noteup | LawCite

Anglogold Ashanti Ltd v First Uranium Corporation (84/LM/SEP11) [2011] ZACT 103 (8 December 2011)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format




COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA







Case No:84/LM/SEP11





In the matter between:







ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED …..................................................Acquiring Firm



And



FIRST URANIUM CORPORATION …...........................................................Target Firm





Panel : Norman Manoim (Presiding Member) Merle Holden (Tribunal Member) Medi Mokuena (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 29 November 2011

Order issued on : 29 November 2011

Reasons issued on : 08 December 2011





Reasons for Decision





Approval



  1. On 29 November 2011, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) approved the large merger between AngloGold Ashanti Limited and First Uranium Corporation. We explain below our reasons for this conclusion.



The Parties to the transaction



  1. The primary acquiring firm is AngloGold Ashanti Limited (“AGA”) a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa. AGA is a widely held company that is not controlled by any firm.



  1. The primary target firm is First Uranium Corporation (“FIUC”), a company listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange and not controlled by any single entity. However, its largest shareholders are Village Main Reef Limited and Franco-Nevada GWL Holding Corporation.



  1. In terms of the transaction, AGA will acquire sole control over FIUC through the purchase of shares equating to approximately 19.79% interest in FIUC from Village Main Reef Limited in the long term.



The Rationale



  1. The merging parties submitted that the acquisition of FIUC is expected to increase AGA’s annual U3O8 production and provide steady-state, long term additional gold production.



The parties’ activities



  1. AGA is a mining company with a number of operations worldwide which are supported by exploration activities that comprise of both greenfields and brownfields exploration.1 It has surface and underground mining operations in South Africa, as well as other African countries, the Australasia region, the United States and South America.



  1. AGA’s South African operations comprise six deep level gold mines and one surface gold operation.



  1. FIUC is a Canadian resources company involved in the development and operation of gold and uranium projects in South Africa.



The relevant market and the impact on competition



  1. The Commission found that there is an overlap in the activities of the merging parties in the market for the production and supply of gold and the market for the production and supply of uranium, as both AGA and FIUC produce and supply gold and uranium. The Commission also submitted that the relevant geographic market is global as there are substantial global trade flows and the product is priced on a global basis. However, with a post-merger market share of 5.078% and 1.017% in the markets for the production and supply of gold and uranium respectively, the Commission submitted that the transaction.



CONCLUSION



  1. The parties submitted that the proposed transaction will not result in employment losses. The proposed transaction does not raise any other public interest issues.



  1. We agree with the Commission’s conclusion above and find that the merger is unlikely to lead to any substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant markets. Accordingly, we approve the above merger unconditionally.







____________________ 08 December 2011

NORMAN MANOIM DATE



Medi Mokuena and Merle Holden





Tribunal Researcher: Tebogo Hlafane

For the merging parties: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Attorneys



For the Commission: Bheki Masilela


1Exploration is termed either greenfields or brownfields depending on the extent to which previous exploration has been conducted on the tenements in question. “Greenfields” refers to unspoilt field whilst “brownfields” refers to that which has been trodden on repeatedly. See page 8 of the Commission’s report.

3