Wrap Text
Outcome of TSC Hearing in the matter between PHI and the Deputy Executive Director of the Panel
TAKEOVER SPECIAL COMMITTEE — PEPPERCLUB HOTEL INVESTMENTS LIMITED —
APPEAL AGAINST RULING OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: TAKEOVER
REGULATION PANEL
Date of Decision: 23 June 2026
Disclaimer
This announcement is a summary of the salient aspects of the Takeover Special Committee's
ruling dated 23 June 2026 only. It does not purport to be a complete account of the ruling, does
not supplement any aspect of the ruling, and must not be read as derogating from or amending
the ruling in any respect whatsoever. In the event of any inconsistency between this summary
and the ruling, the ruling prevails in all respects. Market participants and interested persons are
encouraged to refer to the full ruling, which is available on request from the Panel and will be
available from the Panel's website in due course under the Rulings tab at:
https://trpanel.co.za/rulings/
Introduction
The Takeover Regulation Panel announces that the Takeover Special Committee has, by
decision dated 23 June 2026, dismissed the appeal by Pepperclub Hotel Investments Limited and
confirmed the Panel's ruling of 26 March 2026 refusing an exemption from the takeover provisions
of the Companies Act, 2008.
Background
PHI is a regulated company that proposed to amalgamate with a newly formed entity, PHI Equity
Ltd, with effect from 1 July 2026. The amalgamation constitutes an affected transaction subject
to Parts B and C of Chapter 5 of the Act and the Takeover Regulations. On 27 January 2026, PHI
applied to the Panel for an exemption from compliance with those provisions under section 119(6)
of the Act. The Panel refused the exemption on 26 March 2026. PHI appealed to the TSC under
regulation 118(8) of the Takeover Regulations.
The Committee's Decision
The Committee dismissed PHI's appeal in its entirety and confirmed the Panel's ruling on all three
grounds under section 119(6).
1st | Freestone Park | 135 Patricia Road | Patricia Road | Atholl Johannesburg | 2196
1st Floor Block 2Floor Block 2 | Freestone Park | 135 Atholl Johannesburg | 2196
Fax: +27
+27 11 784 0035 11 784 0035784 0062 +27 784 0062
+27 Fax:
admin@trpanel.co.za
admin@trpanel.co.za Web: www.trpanel.co.za
Web: www.trpanel.co.za
2
Interpretation of Section 119(6)
The Committee held that the Panel's exemption discretion under section 119(6) is not unfettered.
It must be exercised consistently with the Panel's foundational mandate under section 119(1) to
ensure market integrity, fairness to shareholders, and informed decision-making. The exemption
criteria in section 119(6)(a) to (c) must be interpreted within that broader statutory framework.
Even where those criteria are read disjunctively, the Panel cannot determine whether any one
criterion is satisfied without considering the statutory interests that section 119 requires it to
protect.
Section 119(6)(a) — No Reasonable Potential of Prejudice
The Committee found that PHI had not established the absence of a reasonable potential of
prejudice. Prejudice under section 119(6)(a) is not limited to economic harm, it encompasses
procedural and informational prejudice arising from regulatory non-compliance. The Committee
found multiple independent grounds of prejudice, including: the failure to obtain Panel approval
for the AGM notice as required by Regulation 117; the failure to request a ruling on whether an
independent expert was required under Regulation 90; the failure to issue a circular as required
by Regulation 106; the absence of a genuinely independent board; the asymmetric disclosure of
material information through informal channels to select shareholders rather than uniformly to all;
and the 16 business days between notice and meeting, which did not constitute adequate time
for shareholders to consider the transaction. Each of these deficiencies constituted a form of
prejudice to shareholders' interests independently sufficient to defeat the application. Criterion (a)
was not satisfied.
Section 119(6)(b) — Disproportionate Compliance Costs
PHI did not meaningfully engage with this criterion and provided no evidence that compliance
costs were disproportionate relative to the value of the transaction. The Committee further held
that the core compliance steps (i.e. shareholder disclosure, independent expert assessment, and
board independence) are the mechanisms through which the purposes of section 119(1) are
served and cannot rationally be characterised as disproportionate. Criterion (b) was not satisfied.
Section 119(6)(c) — Reasonable and Justifiable
Granting the exemption would not be reasonable and justifiable. It would signal that statutory
disclosure protections and board independence requirements are optional if sought
3
retrospectively, reward procedural non-compliance, and fundamentally undermine the public-law
protections of the regulatory scheme. Criterion (c) was not satisfied.
Deemed Waiver
The Committee found that PHI's deemed waiver mechanism, by which shareholders who did not
vote against the amalgamation resolution were treated as having waived their statutory takeover
protections, was not legally sustainable. There is no provision in the Act or Regulations permitting
a company to unilaterally waive shareholders' statutory rights through a notice clause. The
mechanism reverses the protective structure of the takeover regime, which proceeds on the basis
that statutory rights are preserved unless knowingly and unequivocally relinquished. Silence or
inaction cannot constitute consent to the relinquishment of statutory rights. The purported waiver
was found to be legally unsustainable, unfair, unjust and, in the circumstances, unconscionable.
Shareholder Vote
The outcome of the shareholder vote does not retrospectively cure the regulatory deficiencies
identified above. The protections in Chapter 5 of the Act are designed to operate before
shareholders exercise their voting rights, not after. Approximately 66% of the voting rights
exercised at the meeting were cast in favour of the amalgamation resolution by those
shareholders who attended. This figure does not represent 66% of all registered shareholders.
Approximately 100 of PHI's 204 registered shareholders did not participate in the meeting at all,
representing approximately 49% of the total shareholder base by headcount. The statutory
enquiry under section 119(6)(a) is not whether a majority of those present supported the
transaction, but whether any shareholder whose rights were affected by the regulatory non-
compliance would be prejudiced by the granting of the exemption. A majority vote among those
who attended does not answer that question and cannot substitute for the statutory protections
that the Act requires to be in place before shareholders are called upon to vote.
Application of Regulations
The Committee found that PHI's failure to comply with Regulations 90, 106 and 117 was material
and not capable of retrospective cure. Both Regulations 90 and 106 are framed in mandatory
terms. PHI was not entitled to make a unilateral determination that the transaction was sufficiently
straightforward to dispense with the independent expert process or the circular requirement. That
determination belongs to the Panel, not to the transaction proponents. Regulation 117 requires
Panel approval before any information concerning an affected transaction is published. The AGM
4
notice constituted information concerning an affected transaction and required prior Panel
approval before publication. PHI's failure to obtain that approval deprived shareholders of the
regulatory safeguard that the legislature regarded as necessary in the context of affected
transactions. These requirements are not procedural formalities; they are substantive protections
for shareholders and the integrity of the market.
Order
The Committee's order is as follows:
PHI's appeal is dismissed. The Panel's ruling of 26 March 2026 refusing the exemption application
under section 119(6) of the Act is confirmed. PHI may not implement the amalgamation
transaction unless and until the Panel has issued a compliance certificate in respect of the
amalgamation transaction or has granted an exemption under section 119(6) of the Act to the
extent required by the Act and the Takeover Regulations. The prescribed fees and charges of the
Panel and the Committee, if any, remain payable in accordance with the Act and the Takeover
Regulations. The decision is binding, subject to any right of review or appeal to a court.
Status of the Transaction
The amalgamation transaction may not be implemented in its current form. PHI retains the right
to seek review of the TSC's decision before a court, or to approach the Panel for a compliance
certificate or a properly constituted exemption application in terms of the Act and the Takeover
Regulations. Parties wishing to discuss the applicable regulatory pathways may contact the
Panel's offices directly.
This announcement is made by the Takeover Regulation Panel in accordance with its obligations
under the Companies Act, 2008, and the Takeover Regulations.
Takeover Regulation Panel
24 June 2026
Date: 24-06-2026 01:00:00
Produced by the JSE SENS Department. The SENS service is an information dissemination service administered by the JSE Limited ('JSE').
The JSE does not, whether expressly, tacitly or implicitly, represent, warrant or in any way guarantee the truth, accuracy or completeness of
the information published on SENS. The JSE, their officers, employees and agents accept no liability for (or in respect of) any direct,
indirect, incidental or consequential loss or damage of any kind or nature, howsoever arising, from the use of SENS or the use of, or reliance on,
information disseminated through SENS.
Sharenet Sites 
