On July 3, 2008, the Antitrust Division conditioned its approval of Signature Flight Support’s acquisition of Hawker Beechcraft’s competing flight support business on divestitures at the Indianapolis International Airport. Signature and Hawker both provide flight support services (also called fixed base operations) to charter and corporate airplanes at 45 and 7 airports respectively across the United States. At the Indianapolis airport, Signature and Hawker are the only two providers of these services. Accordingly, the Antitrust Division required divestiture of one of the two parties’ assets at the Indianapolis airport to a buyer that it approves.
Jun
30
Posted by : | On : June 30, 2008
According to Reuters, Hewlett Packard Co. received approval today of its $12.6 billion proposed acquisition of Electronic Data Services. Consummation of the transaction would make HP the second largest provider of technology services behind International Business Machines. The transaction is still subject to approval by the EU Competition Commission.
Jun
09
Posted by : | On : June 9, 2008
On June 6, 2008, Inova Health System announced that it is has abandoned its merger plans with Prince William Health Systems. The FTC had commenced an action in the United States District for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 12, 2008, in which it sought a preliminary injunction to block the merger during the pendency of its adminstrative proceeding. After the motion for a preliminary injunction had been submitted, the hospitals’ abandoned their merger plans. Abandoning merger plans after litigating through a preliminary injunction hearing is rare. The parties must have incurred millions of dollars in legal fees and a decision on the injunction was due in only a month. If the hospitals had prevailed in district court and merged, it is possible that the FTC would have dropped its administrative challenge. The administrative proceedings in this case also were unusual because the FTC appointed one of its Commissioners (Thomas Rosch) to act as the administrative judge.
Jun
06
Posted by : | On : June 6, 2008
On June 5, 2008, the Antitrust Division issued a press release advising that it was closing its investigation into the potential anticompetitve effects from a joint venture between SABMiller plc (Miller) and Molson Coors Brewing Company to combine their operations in the United States. Although it did not provide any quantitative data, the Antitrust Division stated that based on information it received during its eight-month investigation from a wide-range of industry participants, it concluded that no adverse effect on competition would arise from the combination. Indeed, the Antitrust Division credited the parties’ efficiencies claims — noting that they were “verifiable and specifically related to the transaction and include large reductions in variable costs that are likely to have a beneficial effect on prices.” Thus, they met criteria set forth in the Merger Guidelines. Clearance of a merger based in large part on efficiencies is unusual. As a general matter, efficiencies are used by the parties to explain that there is no anticompetitive motive for the merger. Here, the parties were able to obtain much more credit for their efficiencies. Where beer drinkers are concerned, however, Antitrust Division did not note whether there would be a decrease in quality. Indeed, it is possible that the beer companies might rationalize brands to obtain efficiencies. Do loyalists to, for example, Molson Dry, have anything to fear? The Antitrust Division’s press release is attached. DOJ Press Release (Miller/Coors)
Jun
04
Posted by : | On : June 4, 2008
On June 4, 2008, Electronic Arts (video game maker) gave the FTC an extension of time under the HSR Act to review the potential competitive effects of its $2 billion proposed acquisition of Take-Two (maker of Grand Theft Auto). Under the agreement, EA must give the FTC 45 days’ notice of its intention to close. Parties often grant the Antitrust Division and FTC more time to review their transactions with the hope of convincing the agencies not to challenge the merger or to allow them to negotiate a remedy.
May
30
Posted by : | On : May 30, 2008
On May 27, 2008, the Ninth Circuit in Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 05-178328, 2008 WL 2169401 (9th Cir. May 27, 2008), affirmed dismissal of a customer’s challenge to the arrangement between Amazon and Borders whereby Amazon took over operation of Borders’ internet bookstore. Amazon submitted affidavits showing that the prices paid by plaintiff were the same or lower since the arrangement with Borders. The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff did not suffer any injury and therefore lacked Article 3 standing to pursue his antitrust claim. This case marks the second time in about one month that an appellate court has addressed the Article 3 standing of an antitrust plaintiff. The May 16, 2008 post discusses Ross v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 06-4755, 2008 WL 1836640 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2008), where the Second Circuit found that the antitrust plaintiffs had Article 3 standing. Although the Ross plaintiffs had not instituted arbitration proceedings or otherwise had a dispute with their credit card issuers, plaintiffs nevertheless had challenged the arbitration provisions in credit card agreements claiming that these provisions were inserted in the agreements as a result of a conspiracy among certain credit card issuers. According to the Second Circuit, the existence of the offending provisions alone were sufficient to confer standing.