Companies are increasingly facing parallel proceedings involving government investigations and follow-on private litigation. These complex cases often involve competing interests between the parties that can influence a judge’s determination on discovery timing and process.
Private plaintiffs are incentivized to obtain as much information about the case as early as possible to support their allegations and avoid having the case dismissed on summary judgment.
Defendants hope to delay, or save altogether, the expenditure of potentially millions in discovery costs.
The government has a strong interest in preserving the confidentiality and integrity of their investigation without interference from civil plaintiffs. (more…)
On July 6, 2016, Danone S.A. (Danone) agreed to acquire The WhiteWave Foods Company (WhiteWave) for $12.5 billion.
WhiteWave is the leading manufacturer of fluid organic milk in the United States and one of the top purchasers of raw organic milk. Danone is the leading US manufacturer of organic yogurt (Stonyfield). Nearly 90 percent of the raw organic milk used by Danone to manufacture organic yogurt is supplied via a strategic agreement by CROPP Cooperative (CROPP). As of 2009, the strategic supply agreement between Danone and CROPP also includes Danone providing CROPP with an exclusive license for the production and sale of Stonyfield branded fluid organic milk.
WhiteWave and CROPP are the two largest purchasers and top competitors for purchasing raw organic milk from farmers in the Northeast US. Additionally, WhiteWave, CROPP and Danone-CROPP are the only nationwide competitors for the sale of fluid organic milk to retailers and have a 91 percent share of nationwide branded fluid organic milk: Horizon (WhiteWave), Organic Valley (CROPP) and Stonyfield (Danone-CROPP). (more…)
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (the Division) offers leniency to the first company to contact the Division and acknowledge participation in an antitrust conspiracy such as price-fixing, bid-rigging or market allocation. The Division’s leniency program requires the applicant to fully cooperate with the government’s investigation and to candidly acknowledge its wrongdoing, among other requirements. In return, the successful applicant receives a pass from corporate criminal exposure and also receives immunity for its officers, directors and executives.
The leniency program is the crown jewel of the Division’s enforcement regime because of its demonstrated success generating new cases. The program’s ability to attract applicants is based on its transparency and predictability. The level of trust required for companies to air their criminal wrongdoing to prosecuting authorities is not automatic. It has been earned over the years by a program that keeps its promises and works as designed. Therefore, changes to the program are closely watched by the defense bar for any perceived lessening of immunity coverage. (more…)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) reinforces the perils of competitor information exchanges by challenging alleged communications between DirecTV and other video programmers related to broadcast rights for Los Angeles (LA) Dodgers baseball.
WHAT HAPPENED:
In November 2016, the DOJ filed an antitrust complaint against DirecTV. DOJ alleged:
The LA Dodgers sought to sell broadcast rights to their baseball games to cable and satellite TV companies.
DirecTV was a potential bidder for Dodgers’ rights, as were other cable companies operating in the LA area.
DirectTV entered into agreements with competing cable companies to exchange information relating to their negotiations with the LA Dodgers.
As a result of the information learned through these information exchanges, the various potential bidders did not compete aggressively for Dodgers broadcast rights because they gained information about their rivals’ negotiating positions.
The negotiations dragged on, and since no programmer had broadcast rights, people in LA could not watch Dodgers games on television.
Notably, DOJ did not allege that the broadcasters reached any price fixing or market allocation agreement.
In late March, DirecTV settled with the DOJ and entered into a consent order that precludes it from providing non-public, competitively sensitive information to a competitor or seeking such information from competitors.
There are exceptions to allow exchanges in connection with legitimate due diligence, collaborative ventures or commercial vendor/vendee arrangements.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
While not surprising, this case reinforces that information exchanges between competitors creates substantial antitrust risk.
Exchanges can create antitrust exposure even if there isno agreement between the competitors on pricing or other competitive decisions, and compliance programs should reinforce this principle.
Agreements or coordination among buyers raise the same types of competitive issues as agreements among sellers.
In this case, the Dodgers were the sellers and DirecTV and programmers were the buyers.
Another recent example is the FTC/DOJ guidance issued last fall on anticompetitive agreements among employers, such as “no poach” or “no solicit” agreements, which DOJ stated it may prosecute criminally if they are “naked” agreements, unrelated to a legitimate activity such as a joint venture.
The antitrust laws protect the competitive process rather than low prices.
A competitive market for the sale of products often leads to lower priced goods and services.
In this case, DOJ alleged that DirecTV and the other providers exchanged information to prevent the Dodgers from raising the price for Dodgers’ broadcasts, but that did not legitimize the conduct.
A grand jury has indicted three foreign currency exchange spot market dealers for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, in a case brought jointly by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The allegations in the case, United States v. Usher, et al., are that the three named defendants conspired to suppress and eliminate competition for the purchase and sale of Euro/US dollar (EUR/USD) currency pairs via price fixing and bid rigging.
The foreign currency exchange spot market (the “FX Spot Market”) enables participants to buy and sell currencies at set exchange rates. The FX Spot Market is an “over-the-counter” market conducted via direct customer-to-dealer trades, i.e., without an exchange. In the market, currencies are traded and priced in pairs, whereby one currency is exchanged for the other. When filling customer orders, dealers in the FX Spot Market do not serve in a broker capacity, but rather fulfill the orders via their own trading and speculation in the requested currency markets. Dealers employ traders to quote prices and engage in trades to fill customer orders. The dealers and their traders are able to access a separate virtual market, known as the interdealer virtual market, which enables currency trades amongst dealers. According to the Indictment, currency pair prices are set by a continuous auction in the interdealer virtual market, where “individual actions taken by competing traders—to bid or not bid, to offer or not offer, to trade or not to trade, at certain times, and using certain tactics—can cause or contribute to a change in the exchange rate shown in the [virtual trading] interface, and thus may benefit, harm, or be neutral to a competing trader.” The Indictment asserts that this is because the benchmarks used by the virtual market were calculated at particular times each day and were based on “real-time bidding, offering, and trading activity” on the virtual trading market.
The Indictment asserts that the defendants violated the Sherman Act by:
engaging in chat room communications whereby they discussed customer orders, trades, names and risk positions;
refraining from trading against each other’s interests;
coordinating bids for the purpose of fixing the price of the EUR/USD pair.
Defendants are alleged to have engaged in profitable EUR/USD transactions while acting to fix prices and rig bids for the EUR/USD product in the FX Spot Market. The Indictment further alleges that others were co-conspirators, suggesting that there may be cooperating witnesses and possibly further indictments to follow. Of note, however, recent Trump Administration changes to US Attorneys and DOJ Division Deputies and Chiefs may conceivably alter the course of this and any follow-on litigation. Regardless, over-the-counter markets have been a focus of antitrust lawsuits in recent years, most notably in the widely-covered Libor suits, and that trend is expected to continue.
The DOJ Antitrust Division scored another trial win — this time in a real estate foreclosure bid rigging case.
Yesterday’s win follows on the heels of Division wins in a Puerto Rico bus transportation bid rigging/fraud case (DC Office, Criminal I), enjoining of a significant merger (DC Office, Lit I), corruption prosecution of an environmental remediator (New York Office), and another real estate auction case (San Francisco Office).
WHAT THIS MEANS:
The Division is growing a crop of trial-ready and eager attorneys in multiple offices. They can be expected not to shy away from a courtroom challenge.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced several antitrust enforcement actions in advance of the inauguration of President Trump, including settlements for failures to file under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act), a challenge to an unreportable deal and a settlement of a “gun-jumping” claim under the HSR Act. These cases illustrate the importance of compliance with the often complex reporting, waiting period and substantive aspects of antitrust laws in connection with acquisitions of various types, whether or not those acquisitions require premerger reporting. Failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties.
Two HSR “Failure to File” Settlements. On January 17, 2017, the FTC announced two settlements for failures to submit HSR filings and observe the statutory waiting period under the HSR Act prior to consummating acquisitions that met the relevant thresholds. The HSR Act requires notification of certain acquisitions of voting securities, assets and non-corporate interests if the value held as result of the transaction is in excess of certain notification thresholds and size of person thresholds (if applicable), and the transaction is not otherwise exempt. Parties to reportable transactions must observe the statutory waiting period prior to closing. If they fail to file, or otherwise do not observe the waiting period under the HSR Act, the parties may be liable for civil penalties of up to $40,654 per day (which was recently increased from $40,000, effective February 24, 2017).
In the first settlement, Ahmet Okumus agreed to pay $180,000 in connection with failing to notify for his purchases of voting securities of Web.com Group, Inc. (Web.com). According to the complaint, in September 2014, Okumus acquired voting securities of Web.com and as a result, held approximately 13.5 percent of the voting securities of Web.com. Okumus continued to acquire voting securities of Web.com through November 2014. Okumus did not file an HSR notification prior to making these acquisitions, relying on the “investment only” exemption, which exempts acquisitions resulting in holdings of 10 percent or less of the issued and outstanding voting securities if the shares are held solely for the purpose of investment (see 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(9) and 16 C.F.R. § 802.9). However, because Okumus held in excess of 10 percent, this exemption was not applicable. In late November of 2014, Okumus made a corrective filing that allowed him to acquire additional Web.com voting securities for approximately five years, provided that the value of the voting securities he held as a result of any acquisition did not exceed the $100 million (as adjusted) notification threshold. In a letter that accompanied his corrective filing, he indicated that the failure to file was inadvertent. The FTC did not seek civil penalties in that instance.
In June of 2016, Okumus began acquiring additional voting securities of Web.com. Later that month he acquired 236,589 voting securities of Web.com, and as a result of that acquisition, Okumus held voting securities valued (per the HSR rules) in excess of the $100 million (as [...]
This month, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division revised its “Frequently Asked Questions About the Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters” (FAQs), with releases both before and after the new administration took office. The revisions serve as a signal that the continuity we have seen in previous years from the Antitrust Division is likely to continue. The changes include long-needed clarifications and updates since the release of the FAQs in 2008.
McDermott’s Antitrust M&A Snapshot is a resource for in-house counsel and others who deal with antitrust M&A issues but are not faced with these issues on a daily basis. In each quarterly issue, we will provide concise summaries of Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and European Commission (EC) news and events related to M&A, including significant ongoing investigations, trials and consent orders, as well as analysis on the trends we see developing in the antitrust review process.
On Friday, January 13, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released the new Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation. These guidelines were jointly developed by the agencies and serve to update the Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for International Operations that have been in place since April 1995. The new guidelines include a revised discussion on conduct involving foreign commerce, a new chapter on international cooperation, and updated language, case law, and illustrative examples throughout.
Subscribe
