Wellington, March 9, 2026 — The New Zealand High Court has ordered Alderson Logistics Limited and Supa Shavings (2022) Limited to pay a $420,000 penalty after their acquisition of rival businesses was found to have substantially lessened competition in a market.
The case concerned the companies’ May 2022 acquisition of the assets of ABS Carriers Limited and Supa Shavings Limited, which supplied bulk wood shavings used as bedding for chicken and goat farmers in the Waikato region.
According to the Commerce Commission, ABS Carriers and Supa Shavings were the largest suppliers of bulk wood shavings in the region prior to the transaction, with a combined market share of at least 70–80%. The Commission found that the companies were each other’s closest competitors and that the acquisition eliminated that competition.
Commerce Commission Chair Dr John Small said the ruling underscores that acquisitions which substantially lessen competition are illegal under the Commerce Act.
“The Commerce Act is clear – in New Zealand, a person or business must not acquire assets of another business or shares if the effect, or likely effect, is a substantial lessening of competition in a market,” Small said.
The Commission was not notified of the acquisition. While New Zealand operates a voluntary merger clearance regime, the authority may investigate and take enforcement action against mergers or acquisitions that raise competition concerns where clearance has not been sought.
In her judgment, Justice Gardiner noted that Alderson Logistics and Supa Shavings (2022) accepted they benefited commercially from the acquisitions for around 13 months, until a supply shock in the wood shavings market in June 2023 affected their profitability.
The companies also acknowledged that until around November 2024 other suppliers in the market operated only on an ad hoc basis, had small market shares and did not constrain the companies, including in relation to price increases above competitive levels.
Justice Gardiner further noted that the companies could not rely on later lack of profitability to demonstrate that they had not gained from the acquisitions without analysing what their profits would have been had the acquisitions not occurred and competition continued.
The case also marked the first time the Commission asked a business that admitted breaching section 47 of the Commerce Act to divest the acquired assets. Although divestment was not ultimately successful, the Commission said the case illustrates the range of enforcement tools available to it.
Section 47 of the Commerce Act prohibits acquisitions that are likely to substantially lessen competition. The law also allows courts to order the disposal of assets or shares and impose financial penalties for breaches.
