SUMMARY
AbstractThere has been considerable debate internationally around the relative advantages and disadvantages of structural and behavioural remedies. In mergers which raise competition concerns, prohibition or divestiture may prevent merger efficiencies from being realised, and therefore behavioural remedies may seem attractive. However, these can prove difficult or impossible to enforce in practice. The merger approval rates of the South African competition authorities are in line with the practice of international agencies, but the number of behavioural remedies imposed is relatively high. This paper briefly considers the international literature on merger remedies before analysing South African merger decisions and making a comparison with other jurisdictions. It then presents a review of a decision made by the Tribunal in the merger between Astral Foods and National Chick in 2001, which was approved with both structural and behavioural conditions. Finally, the paper draws conclusions for the design of remedies in future.