merger clearance
Subscribe to merger clearance's Posts

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Q2 2020

In the United States, despite requesting additional time to review pending mergers, the US antitrust agencies have continued their work through the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached settlements with a number of merging parties during Q2 2020, and the FTC is proceeding to trial in several merger cases. Both the FTC and the DOJ are conducting investigational hearings and depositions via remote videoconferencing technology such as Zoom. The FTC also announced it prevented 12 deals from closing in 2020 despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Five of the transactions were blocked and another seven were abandoned due to antitrust concerns, putting the FTC on pace for one of its busiest years for merger enforcement in the past 20 years. In Europe, in light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the European Commission (EC) warned that merger control filings would likely not be processed as swiftly as usual. The EC encouraged...

Continue Reading

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Quarter 1 2020

In the United States, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) faced new issues this quarter with the unprecedented challenges brought about by the COVID-19 global pandemic. In March, the agencies made certain changes to the merger review process to accommodate businesses and counsel working remotely. However, merger reviews, challenges, trials and consents have continued as usual at both agencies despite the additional obstacles. In Europe, the European Commission (EC) also put in place special measures to ensure business continuity in the enforcement of merger control during the COVID-19 crisis. The first quarter of 2020 also saw the United Kingdom’s official departure from the European Union, which has consequences on the enforcement of EU competition law in the United Kingdom. Access the full issue.

Continue Reading

THE LATEST: Just Because Your Deal Cleared Doesn’t Mean You’re in the Clear

Dealmakers know that a critical part of the merger process is obtaining antitrust clearance from government enforcers. But, even if the antitrust enforcers review and clear a transaction, a third-party can file a private suit alleging the transaction violated the antitrust laws. Recently, an aggrieved customer did just that—it won a substantial jury verdict and is also seeking a court order to unwind the transaction nearly six years after the transaction was announced. WHAT HAPPENED On February 15, 2018, almost six years after Jeld-Wen announced an acquisition of Craftmaster Manufacturing, Inc. (CMI) in 2012, a federal jury awarded a customer, Steves and Sons (Steves), $58.6 million for antitrust damages and lost profits stemming from the acquisition. Additionally, Steves is seeking to unwind the 2012 Jeld-Wen/CMI transaction through a court order that would force Jeld-Wen to divest of assets sufficient to re-create a competitor as significant as CMI at the...

Continue Reading

Trump’s DOJ Challenges Merger Cleared during Waning Days of Obama Administration

WHAT HAPPENED On December 1, 2016 Parker-Hannifin agreed to acquire Clarcor for $4.3 billion. The merger agreement included a $200 million divestiture cap – that is, Parker-Hannifin was required, if necessary, to divest assets representing up to $200 million in net sales to obtain antitrust clearance. The initial antitrust waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) expired on January 17, 2017. Parker-Hannifin completed the acquisition on February 28, 2017. Nearly seven months later on September 26, 2017, the DOJ filed suit in US District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to require Parker-Hannifin to divest either its or Clarcor’s aviation fuel filtration assets. The DOJ did not include in its complaint an allegation or statement that the parties increased prices. The DOJ press release indicates that the parties “failed to provide significant document or data productions in response to the department’s requests.” We believe that this...

Continue Reading

French Competition Authority Imposes Its First Ever Fine for Gun-Jumping

For the first time ever, on 8 November 2016 the French Competition Authority (FCA) sanctioned companies for implementing a transaction that had been notified to the FCA but not yet received a clearance decision, behaviour commonly known as “gun-jumping”. The FCA has imposed a hefty fine of €80 million on Altice Luxembourg and SFR Group jointly and severally for implementing two proposed acquisitions in the telecommunications industry before obtaining the FCA’s clearance. The FCA has previously imposed fines on companies for failing to notify a concentration, but never for gun-jumping, and the fines imposed up till now were relatively low. The high profiles enjoyed by the sanctioned companies, the very large amount of the fine, and the fact that there are only few previous gun-jumping cases in the world, all contribute to making the FCA’s decision in this case historic. Background In France, companies notifying a concentration to the FCA are required to wait...

Continue Reading

Lessons Learned – The State of Affairs in US Merger Review

In the last year, the US antitrust regulators successfully challenged multiple transactions in court and forced companies to abandon several other transactions as a result of threatened enforcement actions. Looking back at the different cases, there are some trends that we see developing in the government’s positioning on mergers, and these should be kept in mind as parties contemplate mergers and acquisitions moving forward. Read the full article.

Continue Reading

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES