Why did the person sell yeast? To raise some dough. Well, in the case of Anchor Yeast (this year’s centurion) it appears that it might well not be raising enough dough, prompting it to approach government as it is in knead of help (pun intended).

In the Government Gazette of August 18, the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) initiated an antidumping investigation at the behest of Rymco, which trades as Anchor Yeast and is the “only producer of active yeast in the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) and therefore constitutes 100% of Sacu domestic production of the subject product”. If you have read the previous sentence with comprehension, the next in the Gazette ought to make you smile: “Anchor Yeast constitutes a major proportion of total Sacu production.”

According to the Gazette, Anchor Yeast was able to substantiate a decline in its sales volume, loss of market share, declining profits, declining production, declining employment, declining return on investment, declining utilisation of production capacity, declining cash flow, declining inventory levels and a slowdown in growth.

So, which company is inflicting such pain on Sacu’s only producer, and in which country is it based? Let me disclose that I have not had sight of the nonconfidential antidumping application, and only relied on the contents of the six-page Gazette and my favourite search engine. For the exporter’s domestic market value (normal value), reference is made to a cash sales invoice obtained from Lesaffre, which happens to be “a manufacturer” in neighbouring Zimbabwe – which is not what one would consider an economic powerhouse of the South.

The question is whether this is a David-and-Goliath standoff. If so, who is your David? Remember your answer, as there might well be a plot twist.

Here too the ‘a’ might be misleading, as I could not find another yeast manufacturer in Zimbabwe. But, if my search results are to be believed, the story is about to get a bit more interesting – well, a lot more interesting, actually. Lesaffre acquired Anchor Yeast’s Zimbabwean manufacturing operation in 2015. Under the headline ‘Anchor Yeast in trouble’, Zimbabwe’s The Insider publication reported on July 13, 2015, that “Zimbabwe’s sole yeast producer has plunged into insolvency after putting its assets, including the head office, up for sale, signalling the fall of one of the most iconic firms in the country after nearly six decades”.

On September 10, 2015 (slightly over eight years ago to the day), Zimbabwe’s Sunday Mail newspaper published a story headlined ‘French firm announces Anchor Yeast acquisition’, which stated that “Lesaffre (Sociìetè Industrielle Lesaffre), which is considered to be the world leader in the manufacture of yeast and fermentation products, . . . announced the acquisition of the country’s sole manufacturer and distributor of yeast and yeast-related products, Anchor Yeast”. It continued: “The new company that has emerged post acquisition – Lesaffre Zimbabwe – will be jointly owned by Anchor Holdings Private Limited and Lesaffre.” The story concluded by stating: “Meanwhile, Lesaffre Zimbabwe will spend at least US$14-million capex to enhance production. In addition, US$3.5-million will be earmarked for the factory refurbishment next month.”

I should add that the Lesaffre group is a “multinational and multicultural company which has more than 75 subsidiaries based in about 45 countries globally”.

Have you decided on your David yet? Well, that would depend on what you know about Rymco and its ownership. According to the company’s website, in 2006, Lallemand Baking (which, interestingly, started its operations in Montreal, Canada, in 1923) acquired ownership of Rymco (Anchor Yeast) in South Africa, which had been established in 2001, according to Bloomberg. Lallemand Baking is “a long-standing leader in the production and distribution of yeast and ingredients for the baking and fermented beverage industries”, as well as a “global organisation specialising in yeast and bacteria in various applications, bringing innovations and solutions to our local and international markets”.

So, ultimately, it is an antidumping action between a French multinational and a Canadian multinational hosted on Sacu soil. Nothing is ever quite what it seems.

If you read this article in time and would like to comment, the deadline is September 17.