Home / U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Jun

20

Buyer Beware: Consummating Non-HSR Reportable Mergers May Prove Costly In The End

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : June 20, 2014

Category: Antitrust, Government Investigations, Mergers and Acquisitions, U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

A recent speech by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Leslie Overton emphasized the risk in consummating mergers that do not have to be reported under the HSR Act, but have (or may have) adverse effects on competition.  Ms. Overton emphasized that the Antitrust Division devotes substantial resources to, and challenges, non-reportable mergers.  The Antitrust Division learns about non-reportable mergers from a number of sources, including customers, industry contacts and trade publications.  A successful government challenge to a merger can have drastic consequences for the buyer.  The remedy is generally divestiture of key assets and not rescission.  The buyer may have paid substantial money for these assets, but will lose them without receiving much value.  In addition, any profits earned because of adverse effects of competition are subject to disgorgement.  And perhaps most significantly, the buyer and the seller can be sued for treble damages in class actions brought by injured customers.  In an article entitled Buyer Beware: Consummating Non-HSR Reportable Mergers May Prove Costly In The End, published by the ABA Antitrust Litigator, the author herein discusses these risks.  In sum, parties to non-reportable transactions face significant risks if they consummate an anti-competitive merger.

Author: Matthew S. Wild (Wild Law Group PLLC)

Apr

11

Department of Justice Sues Apple and Publishers for Price-Fixing E-Books and Settles with Three Other Publishers

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : April 11, 2012

Category: Antitrust, Consent Decrees, Government Investigations, Section 1 (Sherman Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Today, the Antitrust Division sued Apple and a number of publishers for price fixing e-books.  The government alleges that Apple and the publishers agreed to use Apple as their agent – paying Apple a commission and allowing Apple to set the prices.  Apple set the prices at $9.99 with the support of the publishers.  The government alleges that this conduct constitutes price-fixing and is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.  The action was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where a related multi-district litigation class action is pending, brought  by direct purchasers.  Today, the government also filed a motion for approval of a settlement with three other publishers.  In addition to important reporting requirements, the proposed final judgment provides that “[f]or two years, Settling Defendants shall not restrict, limit, or impede an E-book Retailer’s ability to set, alter, or reduce the Retail Price of any E-book or to offer price discounts or any other form of promotions to encourage consumers to Purchase one or more E-books.”

The E-Books Complaint and E-Books Settlement are available here.

 

Sep

30

FTC and DOJ Urge Reversal in American Needle v. NFL

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : September 30, 2009

Category: Antitrust, FTC Actions, Immunity, Rule of Reason, Section 1 (Sherman Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As noted in the June 29, 2009 Post, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Needle v. Nat’l Football League.  As explained in the September 4, 2008 Post, American Needle applied the Copperweld doctrine to a sports league’s joint licensing scheme for the first time. In so doing, it affirmed summary judgment in favor of the NFL, its teams and Reebok in an antitrust challenge to an exclusive license of team names and logos to Reebok for use on headwear.  (The decision is linked to the September 4 Post).  As explained in Wild, et al., “Private Equity Groups Under Common Legal Control Constitute a Single Enterprise Under the Antitrust Laws,” 3 NYU Journal of Law and Business 231, 237 and n.31 (attached under articles above), that doctrine treats two or more firms that are under common ownership or have a unity of interest in a common course of action as a single firm incapable of conspiring or otherwise acting collectively under the antitrust laws.

In their amici curiae brief, the government urges reversal.  It argues that the Seventh Circuit extended the Copperweld doctrine in a manner inconsistent with prior precedent — e.g., Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a price-setting joint venture and NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), in which the Supreme Court applied a “quick look” to a NCAA restriction on each individual college’s right to broadcast their football games.  While the government conceded that the league should be entitled to Copperweld immunity under circumstances in which the teams need to cooperate such as to produce games, the licensing of NFL team logos is not one of them.  Indeed, the government observed that the NFL joint licensing scheme was similar to the type of scheme under review in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979).  In BMI, the Supreme Court applied the rule of reason to a joint venture in which composers created a clearinghouse to sell a blanket license to works by more than one of them.   The American Antitrust Institute and Consumer Federation of America also filed a brief as amici curiae urging reversal.  Their brief and the government’s brief are linked below.  DOJ and FTC Brief;  AAI Brief

Jun

30

Scrap Metal Dealers Acquitted of Price-Fixing

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : June 30, 2009

Category: Antitrust, Criminal, Section 1 (Sherman Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,

In another blow to the Antitrust Division’s criminal section, two scrap metal dealers were acquitted of price-fixing on June 25, 2009.  The jury returned its verdict in less than four hours.  As reported in the November 16 and March 15, 2008 Posts, the Antitrust Division has lost a number of high profile price-fixing trials including in the magazine paper, DRAM and marine hose cartels.  The trials involving the magazine paper and marine hose cartels likewise resulted in quick acquittals with the jury returning not guilty verdicts in both cases in less than two hours.  It should be noted, however, that the class action on behalf of victims of the scrap metal cartel resulted in a $20 million damages verdict, which was affirmed on appeal.  (See May 16, 2008 Post).

Jan

14

AT&T Settles Civil Contempt Claim with the DOJ for $2 Million

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : January 14, 2009

Category: Antitrust, Consent Decrees, Government Investigations, Mergers and Acquisitions, U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , ,

AT&T settled a civil contempt claim with the DOJ in connection with its failure to comply with the divestiture requirements in a consent decree governing its acquisition of Dobson Communications Corporation.  In particular, AT&T failed to keep confidential customer information relating to the businesses that had to be divested.  The Antitrust Division’s press release appears below:

WASHINGTON — AT&T Inc. has agreed to pay more than $2 million as part of a civil settlement with the Department of Justice that resolves AT&T’s alleged violations of two court orders entered in connection with AT&T’s acquisition of Dobson Communications Corporation.

The Department today filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking it to find AT&T in civil contempt of a 2008 consent decree and a related court order. At the same time, the Department filed a settlement agreement and order, subject to court approval, that would resolve the Department’s concerns. The payment to the United States includes reimbursement to the government for the cost of its investigation into AT&T’s alleged violations.

“It is imperative that companies fully abide by their court-ordered obligations in order for our settlements to be effective in preserving competition and protecting consumers,” said Deborah A. Garza, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division. “When companies fail to comply with a court order, the Antitrust Division will take swift and certain action to ensure that companies fulfill their responsibilities.”

Under the consent decree entered by the court in March 2008, AT&T was required to divest mobile wireless telecommunications businesses in three rural service areas (RSAs)  two in Kentucky and one in Oklahoma. Pending divestiture, a management trustee was appointed to oversee the businesses to be divested. Under the consent decree and a related court order, AT&T was required to take all steps necessary to ensure that the divested businesses were operated independently of AT&T and that AT&T did not influence how they were managed. AT&T was also required to take all reasonable efforts to preserve the confidentiality of information material to the operation of the divested businesses and not give unauthorized personnel access to such information.

According to the petition filed by the Department, AT&T failed to fulfill its obligations under the two court orders. The petition alleges that AT&T failed to separate confidential customer account information of the divested businesses from its own customer records and to take other actions needed to prevent unauthorized disclosure. Consequently, AT&T personnel obtained unauthorized access to the divested businesses’ competitively sensitive customer information and in some situations used it to solicit and win away the divested businesses’ customers. The petition further alleges that AT&T, without authorization by the management trustee, waived early termination fees for several customers of the divested businesses to facilitate switching their wireless service from the divested businesses to AT&T.

Dec

22

Investment Funds Fined for Violating HSR Pre-Merger Notification Requirements

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : December 22, 2008

Category: Antitrust, Consent Decrees, Government Investigations, HSR Review, U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,

Antitrust Division’s press release:

“WASHINGTON — Two related investment funds will pay civil penalties totaling $800,000 to settle charges that they violated premerger reporting requirements, the Department of Justice announced today.

The Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, filed a civil lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against ESL Partners L.P. and ZAM Holdings L.P. for violating the notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act of 1976. At the same time, the Department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, will settle the charges. Under the terms of the settlement, ESL Partners has agreed to pay $525,000, and ZAM Holdings $275,000, in civil penalties.

ESL Partners, based in Greenwich, Conn., and ZAM Holdings, based in New York City, are investment funds with holdings in numerous companies. The investment decisions for both ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings were made by RBS Partners, of Greenwich.

According to the complaint, ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings failed to comply with the antitrust premerger notification requirements of the HSR Act before acquiring voting securities of AutoZone Inc., based in Memphis, Tenn., in September and October of 2004. As a result of these acquisitions, ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings each held AutoZone voting securities valued in excess of the $50 million HSR reporting threshold then in effect. The complaint alleges that ESL Partners was in violation of the HSR Act from Sept. 28, 2004, through Feb. 28, 2005, and that ZAM Holdings was in violation from Oct. 12, 2004, through March 2, 2005.

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976, an amendment to the Clayton Act, imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they consummate acquisitions resulting in holding stock or assets above a certain value. The violations occurred when the HSR reporting threshold was $50 million. Since March 2005, the threshold has been adjusted annually to reflect changes in gross national product.

The Act permits a federal court, in a lawsuit brought by the Department, to assess a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for each day a person or company is in violation.”

This action shows the agencies’ vigilance in enforcing compliance with the HSR Act.  Unwary investment funds can violate the HSR Act when they begin to engage in sizeable transactions.  They have done so on many occassions.  Unlike the securities laws with which they are generally familar, the HSR Act requires the filing before acquiring the outstanding securities.  It is thus important for investmnet funds to obtain antitrust compliance counseling.

Nov

30

Court Rejects DOJ’s Request for Prison Time for Two Defense Contractors

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : November 30, 2008

Category: Antitrust, Criminal, U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,

In November 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced two defense contractors to probation who had pleaded guilty in connection with a conspiracy to steal confidential bidding information from a competitor.  The conspiracy concerned contracts to supply the Department of Defense with jet fuel abroad.  In its press release announcing the guilty pleas (attached Cartwright Press Release), the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Section noted that the defendants pleaded guilty to offenses that had maximum prison sentences of 20 years — conspiracy to commit wire fraud by one defendant and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, defraud the United States and steal trade secrets by the other defendant.  The court rejected the government’s requests for prison time.  It noted that the defendants had otherwise been exemplary businessman and citizens and were pioneers in supplying fuel to newly opened routes in Eastern Europe.  They were responsible for opening aviation from throughout the world in  these far flung areas.  The defendants were represented by Richard Levitt, Esq. of Levitt & Kaizer, Ray Granger, Esq. of Granger & Associates and Gordon Mehler, Esq. of Law Offices of Gordon Mehler.

Nov

16

DOJ Loses Another Criminal Price Fixing Trial

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : November 16, 2008

Category: Antitrust, Criminal, Section 1 (Sherman Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,

On November 10, 2008, the DOJ Antitrust Division’s criminal section lost another high profile criminal price fixing trial. This time the individual defendant was acquitted of alleged participation in the highly publicized marine hose cartel that had resulted in numerous guilty pleas.  After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in less than two hours.  Paul Calli, Michael Pasano and Marissel Descalzo of Carlton Fields, P.A. represented the defendant.  (Carlton Fields press release)  The criminal section has lost a number of high profile trials recently — DRAM (hung jury; decision not to re-prosecute) and magazine paper.

Nov

05

Google Abandons Deal with Yahoo in Response to Antitrust Concerns

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : November 5, 2008

Category: Antitrust, Government Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , ,

On July 2, 2008, this blawg reported that the Antitrust Division issued civil investigative demands to investigate the potential competitive effects from an agreement between Google and Yahoo that would allow Google to post advertisements on Yahoo in exchange for part of the revenue.  Google announced today that it has withdrawn from the transaction in response to concerns from antitrust regulators.

Nov

03

DOJ Uses Familiar Delay Tactics to Try to Gain an Unfair Advantage in the Beef Packing Merger Litigation

Posted by : Matthew Wild | On : November 3, 2008

Category: Antitrust, HSR Review, Section 7 (Clayton Act), U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division)

Tags:, , , , , , , ,

It appears that in United States v. JBS, S.A., the government is using the same tactics that it did in United States v. UPM-Kymmene Oyj — both of which were brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.   The government is hoping to kill the deal by trying to delay the case and seeking to avoid a consolidated trial on the merits with a preliminary injunction hearing.  If the preliminary injunction hearing is not consolidated, the government can prevail by only showing that there is a serious question going to the merits rather than by a preponderance of evidence.  This approach will allow the government to avoid proving its case at trial because as the parties have made clear, a preliminary injunction will kill the deal.  They will not wait for a trial at a later date.

UPM was successful in obtaining a prompt preliminary injunction hearing because UPM was not required to consent to an extension of the temporary restraining order.  Notwithstanding that Section 15 of the Clayton Act and the legislative history of the HSR Act support a prompt consolidated trial on the merits as the Clayton Act directs that “the trial shal be as soon as may be” and the HSR Act was enacted to “promote the legitimate interests of business community”  as well as the nearly uniform line of cases that consolidated such proceedings, the UPM Court did not do so.   As the parties had promised, they abandoned the merger after the preliminary injunction was granted.  Thus, UPM further supports the proposition that consolidation is the most practical approach because as numerous courts have observed, a preliminary injunction will kill the deal.

It is regrettable that the government chooses to engage in these tactics rather than allow a court to decide the merits.