DOJ Developments Archives - Page 20 of 42

DOJ Developments

Supreme Court Asked to Clarify the Reach of U.S. Antitrust Laws to Foreign Conduct

by Louise Aberg and Lisa A. Peterson | Mar 24, 2015 | Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments, Private Litigation

On March 16, 2015, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc. (AU Optronics) and Motorola Mobility LLC separately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and the extent to which its language allows foreign conduct to be brought within the scope of the Sherman Act. The requests for review follow from potentially conflicting holdings from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in cases that stem from distinct interpretations of the same provisions in the FTAIA and involve the very same conduct – AU Optronics’ and its co-conspirators’ agreement overseas to fix the prices of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. The cases have different procedural foundations in that the Ninth Circuit case is a criminal suit brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ), while the Seventh Circuit case is a civil matter in which private parties are seeking damages.

In Hsiung,[i] AU Optronics appeals the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the Sherman Act via the FTAIA can support criminal charges against foreign cartel conduct. In that case, the court had affirmed AU Optronics’ conviction in July 2014 and rendered an amended opinion on January 30, 2015. Meanwhile, Motorola Mobility appeals the Seventh Circuit’s finding in Motorola Mobility[ii] that a civil price-fixing claim against the same cartel could not be supported under the same provisions of the FTAIA. The Seventh Circuit decided the case on November 26, 2014 (after vacating a previous opinion from March 2014) and later amended its opinion on January 12, 2015. The companies believe that these interpretations of the FTAIA are conflicting and, therefore, ripe for Supreme Court review.

The FTAIA was adopted to clarify the enforcement scope of U.S. federal antitrust laws as applied to anticompetitive conduct that occurs abroad. Since its enactment, however, lower courts have interpreted the FTAIA differently, which has led to conflicting decisions and legal uncertainty. Under the FTAIA, all foreign conduct is placed outside the scope of the Sherman Act, unless (1) the alleged conduct involves import commerce (import commerce exemption) or (2) it has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce and the criminal charge or civil claim “arises from” that effect (domestic effects exception).

The circuit courts interpreted certain language in these provisions differently, specifically “import commerce” and “direct effect,” and when such effect “gives rise to a Sherman Act claim.” In Hsiung, the Ninth Circuit considered import commerce to be any conduct affecting an import market, which means that it need not be shown that a foreign defendant directly imported goods himself into the U.S. As to the domestic effects exception, the Ninth Circuit further explained that foreign conduct has a direct effect on U.S. commerce where the conduct “follows as an immediate consequence of the defendant[s’] activity.” According to the court, AU Optronics’ conduct had a direct effect on U.S. commerce that gave rise to a Sherman Act claim because the price-fixed goods manufactured abroad were a significant component of [...]

Continue Reading

Parking Heater Manufacturer Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing

by Young Cynn | Mar 17, 2015 | Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments

On March 12, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Espar Inc., pleaded guilty to one count of price-fixing under the Sherman Act in a scheme involving parking heaters for commercial vehicles that ran from October 2007 through December 2012. Parking heaters heat the inside of a vehicle when the engine is not running.

According to the press release, Espar, a parking heater manufacturer, agreed to pay a criminal fine and cooperate in the DOJ’s ongoing investigation. Espar and its co-conspirators discussed prices for parking heaters and agreed to set a price floor for parking heater kits sold to aftermarket customers. Further, the companies agreed to coordinate the timing and amount of price increases, and enforced the agreement by exchanging information. Investigation into the other companies is ongoing, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Although the judge initially agreed to Espar’s and DOJ’s joint request to waive the pre-sentence investigation report and schedule sentencing on the same day as the plea hearing, the judge later changed his mind. The judge stated in his order that his review of the pre-sentence report would ensure that “the agreed-upon fine is not too modest” and address any concerns that the terms of the plea agreement may implicate Fifth Amendment issues for individual employees who are required to cooperate with DOJ. Espar’s plea agreement is still subject to court approval, and sentencing is scheduled for June 5, 2015. The maximum fine for price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act for corporations is either $100 million, or the amount twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims—whichever is greater.

DOJ Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer stated that the “plea demonstrates the Antitrust Division’s commitment to holding companies accountable for conspiracies that fix prices on parts used in every day products,” and that “[t]he Antitrust Division will vigorously prosecute companies that engage in schemes that subvert normal competitive processes and defraud American consumers and businesses.”

Increasing Antitrust Risk in Non-Reportable Transactions – DOJ Obtains Disgorgement of Profits in Tour Bus Settlement

by Jon B. Dubrow | Mar 11, 2015 | DOJ Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently reached a settlement with Coach USA Inc. and City Sights LLC, breaking up their joint venture. The DOJ also employed the rarely used remedy of disgorgement to recover $7.5 million in profits from the defendants. This case demonstrates the aggressive posture the antitrust agencies are taking to challenge and impose harsh remedies upon transactions that are not reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. It also highlights the need to properly evaluate and prepare for the antitrust implications of non-reportable transactions under the HSR Act.

DOJ Obtains Disgorgement

In 2009, two operators of hop-on, hop-off bus tours in New York City formed a joint venture, Twin America LLC. Prior to the formation of Twin America, Coach USA and City Sights were the two largest companies in the alleged hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in New York City, with a combined 99 percent share of the market. The DOJ alleged that the two companies’ joint venture created an unlawful monopoly and enabled them to increase prices by approximately 10 percent. The DOJ filed an antitrust complaint challenging the deal in December 2012, well after it was consummated in 2009. The case was proceeding towards trial when the parties agreed to a settlement, which they announced on March 16, 2015.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants must take several steps to restore competition allegedly lost through the formation of the venture. Twin America must divest all 50 of City Sight’s valuable Manhattan bus stop authorizations. The divestiture will eliminate a significant barrier to entry, as the bus stop authorizations are required by the New York City Department of Transportation to operate bus tours, and little capacity for new authorizations exists. Coach USA and Twin America must also establish antitrust training programs and provide the government with advance notice of any future acquisition in the alleged market. Coach USA must pay $250,000 in attorney’s fees to the United States in connection with claims that it spoliated evidence and did not meet its document preservation obligations.

Most noteworthy, the settlement requires the defendants to pay $7.5 million to disgorge what the DOJ viewed as excess profits obtained as a result of the combination. Prior to this settlement, the defendants had already agreed to pay $19 million to settle a related class action lawsuit. One criticism of disgorgement as a remedy in antitrust matters is that disgorgement may excessively punish defendants that are also subject to potential civil litigation in which they may pay additional damages. Here, the DOJ concluded that the defendants were unjustly enriched by an amount greater than the $19 million settlement, and the additional $7.5 million disgorgement was intended to divest the defendants of additional ill-gotten profits and deter similar conduct in the future.

This disgorgement is significant. It is a remedy that the FTC and DOJ have used very infrequently, particularly in merger cases. To the extent the Twin America case creates a precedent for the use of that remedy, it increases [...]

Continue Reading

FTC and DOJ Host Workshop Examining Health Care Competition

by McDermott Will & Emery, Ashley Fischer, Lisa A. Peterson, Stephen Wu and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 4, 2015 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust, Mergers & Acquisitions

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) held a public workshop on February 24–25, 2015, to examine recent trends and developments in health care provider organization and payment models, and their potential effects on competition in the provision of health care services. A main message from FTC and DOJ leadership at the workshop is that the agencies evaluate new provider and payment models for their adherence to competition principles, effect on cost of care, access and quality, and avoidance of market power.

Read the full article.

Federal Court Finds Amex’s “Anti-Steering” Merchant Rules Anticompetitive

by Emily Townsend | Feb 27, 2015 | DOJ Developments, Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance

After a seven-week bench trial in an enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 17 state attorneys general, U.S. District Judge Garaufis (Eastern District of New York) held that American Express Co.’s (Amex’s) “anti-steering” rules (Non-Discrimination Provisions or NDPs) are an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The NDPs in Amex’s agreements with merchants prevent merchants from attempting “to induce or ‘steer’ a customer” from paying with non-AmEx credit cards by, for instance, offering discounts or incentives to customers paying with other cards, even though “the cost of [such] transaction[s] [would likely] be lower for the merchant.” At bottom, the court’s holding centered on its conclusion that “these NDPs create an environment in which there is nothing to offset [Amex’s incentive] to charge merchants inflated prices [to process transactions, which] results in higher costs to all consumers who purchase goods and services from these merchants.”

In the initial step of its rule-of-reason analysis—DOJ’s burden to demonstrate that the NDPs “have had an ‘adverse effect on competition as a whole in the relevant market,’” which may be met by “establishing that [Amex] had sufficient market power to cause an adverse effect on competition”—the court focused first on market definition, then market power and anticompetitive effects.

Regarding the relevant market, Amex argued that it includes both debit and credit cards. It distinguished United States v. Visa, where the Second Circuit held that credit cards and debit cards are distinct relevant markets, in light of “the dramatic growth in customers’ use of debit cards” since that 2003 decision. The court disagreed, finding that “debit cards have not become reasonably interchangeable with [credit] cards or network services in the eyes of credit-accepting merchants, who are the relevant consumers in this case.” Rather, the court employed a market definition comprising only credit cards, where AmEx holds a 26 percent share. The court did, however, reject DOJ’s argument for an even smaller submarket, i.e., credit card services for only travel and entertainment merchants (where Amex’s market share is even higher), based on its finding that DOJ failed to show that credit card companies are able to charge discriminatory prices to those merchants.

The court went on to conclude that “Amex’s NDPs have adversely affected competition in the [relevant] market, and [Amex] possesses sufficient market power to cause such effects.” The court found that Amex “enjoy[s] significant market share in a highly concentrated market with high barriers to entry, and are able to exercise uncommon leverage over their merchant-consumers,” for instance by “imposing significant price increases . . . without any meaningful merchant attrition.” The court also found actual adverse effects on interbrand competition (i.e., that the NDPs “render[] low-price business models untenable, stunt[] innovation, and result[] in higher prices”), reasoning that the NDPs “deny[] merchants the opportunity to influence their customers’ payment decisions and thereby shift spending to less expensive cards[, such that the NDPs] impede a significant avenue of horizontal interbrand competition in the [...]

Continue Reading

Top Antitrust Watchdog to Merging Firms: DOJ Not Interested in Remedies that Require Ongoing Regulatory Oversight

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 19, 2015 | DOJ Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

Head U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust enforcer, Bill Baer, believes the Federal Trade Commission and DOJ are law enforcement agencies, not regulators. In his recent speech at the Global Competition Review Fourth Annual Antitrust Leaders Forum, Baer stressed that antitrust regulation “is not what we do. And it is not how we ought to think about what we do.” He added that the antitrust agencies “do not aspire to be regulators or to pick winners and losers. Instead antitrust enforcement, done right, focuses on removing impediments to competitive markets and protecting market structures that facilitate competition.” Baer’s enforcement-minded approach likely explains one reason why the federal antitrust agencies do not typically accept conduct remedies to resolve antitrust concerns. Conduct remedies require an entity to take, or refrain from, certain business conduct (e.g., price maintenance commitments). The federal antitrust agencies disfavor conduct remedies in part because they often require significant monitoring (i.e., regulation) to fully protect competition. As enforcers, Baer believes the agencies should use the antitrust laws to preserve competition with little regulatory involvement. He noted in his recent speech that effective antitrust remedies “minimize the need for ongoing regulatory involvement in decisions better left to the market.”

As litigation expenses continue to rise, it is often prudent for parties under antitrust investigation to resolve the antitrust agencies’ concerns through a consent agreement. The nature of the parties’ proposed remedy is highly important. With federal antitrust agencies unlikely to accept conduct remedies to resolve antitrust concerns, parties must be ready to present structural remedies—i.e., asset divestitures to ready, willing and able buyers—that fully preserve competition. The antitrust agencies will carefully scrutinize any proposed remedy. If the reviewing agency believes the remedy falls short of fully preserving competition, then it likely will be rejected. Indeed, Baer messaged in his speech that “[s]ound antitrust enforcement requires careful attention to remedies.” He praised DOJ’s recent efforts to reject inadequate remedy proposals in favor of pursuing law enforcement actions to obtain the relief DOJ deemed necessary to preserve competition. In short, parties must be ready to fully address the antitrust agencies concerns or do battle in court.

DOJ Issues Business Review Letter Pertaining to SSO Policy on Standard-Essential Patents and RAND Commitments

by McDermott Will & Emery and Will Diaz | Feb 12, 2015 | DOJ Developments, IP Antitrust

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a business review letter stating that it would not challenge the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.’s (IEEE’s) proposed revisions to its patent policy. These patent policy revisions seek to address the “wide divergence” in expectations between holders of patents essential to an IEEE standard and the market participants seeking to implement such standards. The DOJ’s response looked favorably on the IEEE’s proposed revisions pertaining to RAND royalties and limitations on injunctive relief for standard-essential patent holders.

Read the full article.

Former Toyoda Gosei Executive Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing, Bid-Rigging

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 13, 2015 | Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments

On January 6, 2015, Makoto Horie of Toyoda Gosei North America pled guilty to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) for conspiring to fix the prices of automotive hoses sold to U.S. companies. Mr. Horie was sales general manager for Toyoda Gosei in Japan. He will serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison and pay a $20,000 criminal fine for participating in the conspiracy between March 2007 and September 2010.

Toyoda Gosei pled guilty in September 2014 to price-fixing and bid-rigging for automotive hoses, airbags and steering wheels. Unlike Toyoda Gosei’s plea agreement, Mr. Horie’s Information did not allege any wrongdoing related to automotive airbags or steering wheels. Including Mr. Horie and his former employer, 29 individuals and 32 companies have now admitted guilt to the DOJ. These individuals and entities have agreed to pay over $2.4 billion in fines.

Mr. Horie’s plea agreement is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Aerospace & Defense Series: Leading Antitrust Considerations for M&A Transactions

by Jon B. Dubrow | Dec 18, 2014 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration, Mergers & Acquisitions

Aerospace and defense contractors engage in a wide range of mergers, acquisitions and joint venture transactions, which are often subject to heightened antitrust scrutiny. This article highlights some of the leading antitrust factors that contractors should consider when contemplating M&A transactions in their unique industry.

Read the full article.

DOJ Issues First Business Review Letter Following Agencies’ Joint Policy Statements on Cybersecurity

by Michelle Lowery | Oct 28, 2014 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments

On October 2, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its first business review letter since issuing jointly with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the Agencies’ Antitrust Policy Statement on Sharing of Cybersecurity Information in April 2014 (the Policy Statement). The Policy Statement recognized that sharing cyber threat information is integral to defending against cyber-attacks. It states that cyber information sharing will be reviewed under a rule of reason analysis that focuses on the improved efficiency and security of cyber networks, the nature of the cyber information to be shared, and whether the information exchange is likely to harm competition.

CyberPoint International, LLC, requested the business review letter for its cyber intelligence data-sharing platform called TruSTAR. The TrueStar platform collects incident reports, anonymously submitted, that include technical information, targets of the attack, contextual information and remediation solutions, which help members analyze their organization’s risk and current defenses. The platform also contains a members-only forum where members can anonymously interact with the member that submitted a particular incident report, but requires as a prerequisite for participation a certification that members will not exchange “competitively sensitive information—such as recent, current, and future prices, cost data, or output levels—or otherwise attempt price or other coordination.” Members must also have a Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S number, be in good standing with local, state and federal government and agencies, as well as satisfy minimum technical performance criteria.

In analyzing the proposed data-sharing platform, the DOJ found significant that “the business purpose and nature of the information sharing agreement does not suggest competition or consumers will be harmed.” Notably, “the nature of the information that will be shared is unlikely to facilitate tacit or explicit price or other competitive coordination among competitors,” because “[t]he information to be shared through incident reports and the collaboration forum are very technical and is the type of information sharing contemplated by the . . . Policy Statement.” Specifically, “no competitively sensitive information about recent, current, and future prices, cost data, output levels, or capacity will be exchanged,” and “CyberPoint will obtain commitments from members that competitively sensitive information won’t be exchanged.” Therefore, the DOJ concluded that competitive harm was unlikely and that consumers would likely benefit from the lower cost and more efficient means of establishing network security.

The business review letter is available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/309071.pdf.