The US Federal Trade Commission today announced increased thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and for determining whether parties trigger the prohibition against interlocking directors under Section 8 of the Clayton Act.
Notification Threshold Adjustments
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced revised thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR) pre-merger notifications on January 28, 2020. These increased thresholds will become effective on February 27, 2020. These new thresholds apply to any transaction that closes on or after the effective date.
The US antitrust regulators continue to challenge consummated transactions. On January 3, 2020, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Axon Enterprise, Inc., challenging its consummated acquisition of VieVu, a body-worn camera competitor, from Safariland. The FTC also challenged non-compete agreements that Axon and Safariland signed in connection with the acquisition. The complaint demonstrates the FTC’s continued focus on challenging consummated transactions, and on defining “price discrimination markets” around sets of customers with unique needs. The FTC’s challenge also shows that merging parties should avoid signing non-compete agreements that are not reasonably limited in scope and duration. If these agreements are not appropriately tailored to achieving a legitimate business interest, the FTC may challenge them as anticompetitive.
For the first time since the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) published non-horizontal merger guidelines in 1984, the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued updated Vertical Merger Guidelines to explain how the antitrust agencies analyze vertical mergers. The guidelines were published in draft on January 10, 2020, and are now open for a 30-day public comment period.
WHAT HAPPENED:
The DOJ and FTC released draft guidelines outlining the principal analytical techniques, practices and enforcement policies the antitrust agencies will use to analyze vertical mergers and acquisitions. Vertical mergers combine firms or assets that operate at different stages of the same supply chain. For example, vertical mergers or acquisitions could combine companies such as:
a satellite maker and a payload provider;
an automaker and an aluminum supplier;
an automaker and an automotive retailer;
a filmmaker and a cable television company; or
a pharmaceutical company and a chemical company making active pharmaceutical ingredients.
The merging companies do not compete with each other, but rather work with each other through the supply of inputs, distribution or other business services. The draft guidelines are relatively limited in scope and do not significantly expand the theories and issues that US antitrust regulators have been applying to vertical mergers for several years. That said, having these theories on paper will provide helpful guideposts in assessing potential transactions. At the FTC, the two Democratic Commissioners abstained from voting to release the guidelines, issuing Dissenting Statements instead.
The draft guidelines rely on the well-established principles in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines on how to define product markets and measure concentration levels. The guidelines establish a safe harbor if the companies have a share of less than 20% in the relevant market(s), but set no presumption of anticompetitive harm if market shares are higher than that. The focus of these new draft vertical merger guidelines is on the competitive effects analysis and not on shares or any formulaic assessment. The basic concern is whether combining two companies at different levels in a supply chain will enable the combined company to lessen competition at one of the levels.
Unilateral Effects
First, the guidelines discuss potential unilateral anticompetitive effects from vertical mergers under two theories: (1) foreclosure/raising rivals’ costs and (2) access to competitively sensitive information.
Raising rivals costs / foreclosure. The first theory suggests that “[a] vertical merger may diminish competition by allowing the merged firm to profitably weaken . . . one or more of its actual or potential rivals in the relevant market by changing the terms of those rivals’ access to one or more related products.” Alternatively, the merged firm could refuse to supply rivals altogether, foreclosing their access to a necessary product or service. The guidelines lay out the following key conditions for a foreclosure theory:
The foreclosure makes it more difficult for the company that is foreclosed to compete effectively.
The newly merged firm is likely to win more business if it denies or disadvantages the [...]
Three recent antitrust merger reviews involving nascent competition demonstrate enforcers are paying close attention to acquisitions by industry leaders of emerging, but early-stage competitors. The US antitrust agencies have been criticized for allowing leading technology companies to extend their entrenched positions to multiple markets or technologies through acquisitions. We are now seeing regulators increasing their scrutiny of acquisitions of nascent competitors that were positioning themselves to challenge an entrenched, strong rival.
There was significant antitrust activity in the third quarter of 2019. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) continued an active docket challenging M&A transactions. DOJ is resolving antitrust reviews significantly faster than the FTC, following DOJ’s 2018 policy establishing a six-month target. The DOJ also made use, for the first time, of its authority to arbitrate a market definition dispute, potentially opening the door for a new tool the DOJ could employ to resolve challenges more rapidly.
In the European Union, the European Commission (EC) agreed to clear, subject to conditions, the acquisition of broadband and energy networks following lengthy Phase 2 investigations. Meanwhile, the national European regulators opened new in-depth investigations into commercial radio advertising, software as a service for airlines, autonomous sea surface vehicles and the promotion of live music events (all in the UK) and prohibited the merger of two recyclers (Germany).
Today, companies looking to merge with others across jurisdictions would do well to consider antitrust issues at the beginning of the transaction process; regulatory antitrust challenges to M&A are increasing globally. On Corporate Counsel, McDermott partners Jon B. Dubrow and Joel R. Grosberg discuss six risks to deals from antitrust regulators, such as vertical merger enforcement changes at the US DOJ, and ways to manage them.
Recent developments indicate that pharmaceutical deals are attracting greater scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In September 2019, FTC Chairman Joseph Simons reportedly stated that the FTC will more closely scrutinize deals with overlaps involving products that are still in clinical study or development. Because of the high failure rate of products in early phases of study, the FTC typically has focused on overlaps between marketed products or products near Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval, g., products in Phase III of the FDA pipeline. Chairman Simons’s statement makes clear that the FTC plans to examine earlier stage products while reviewing deals.
In 2018, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition announced in a speech that the FTC would favor divestitures of marketed drugs over pipeline drugs in pharmaceutical deals. Traditionally, when the FTC has had a concern about overlapping products, it has allowed the merging parties to decide which of the overlapping products to divest to remedy the concern. The director explained that, unlike marketed products, pipeline products may be costly to transfer or never be brought to market, eliminating a potential source of future competition.
Legislators on Capitol Hill have placed pressure on the FTC to scrutinize pharmaceutical deals with more vigor. Nine US senators wrote the FTC in September to voice concerns about the effect of pharmaceutical deals on innovation and prices. In their letter, the senators specifically highlighted divestitures of pipeline products, stating that such divestitures may not sufficiently address threats to competition because pipeline products may never make it to market.
DTE and Enbridge’s natural gas pipeline joint venture, Nexus, agreed to purchase the Generation Pipeline (Generation).
Generation was owned by a group of sellers including North Coast Gas Transmission (North Coast).
Generation’s primary asset is a 23-mile pipeline that serves the Toledo, Ohio, area.
North Coast continues to own a competing pipeline near Toledo, Ohio.
The purchase agreement contained a non-compete provision that prevented the sellers, including North Coast, from competing in three counties surrounding Toledo, Ohio, for three years.
After an investigation, the FTC announced a settlement with DTE, Enbridge and Nexus to remedy the FTC’s concern with the non-compete provision by requiring the purchase agreement to be amended to remove the non-compete provision.
The FTC Commissioners were unanimous in their conclusion that the challenged non-compete was unlawfully broad, though several Commissioners issued concurring statements regarding the import of the FTC’s action in this case.
The second quarter of 2019 proved to be a busy season for antitrust matters. In the United States, agencies continued to be aggressive and blocked transactions or required significant remedies. They cleared three mergers where divestitures were required; and in the face of FTC or DOJ opposition, companies abandoned several transactions, including between Republic National Distribution Company and Breakthru Beverage Group. Regarding vertical transactions, we continued to see a split between the FTC Republican and Democratic Commissioners regarding whether enforcement is required and the appropriate remedies.
In the European Union, the EC published a report on competition policy for the digital era, which deals with, among other things, acquisitions of nascent competitors. The EC also closed two merger control proceedings subject to divestitures, blocked a proposed joint venture, and showed that it will seek large fines for companies violating EU competition rules for merger notifications.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), along with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), approved amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Rules and the instructions for completing the HSR Form.
Data on non-manufacturing revenue will be required to be reported using the updated 6-digit NAICS codes, while data on manufacturing revenue will be required to be reported using both the 6-digit NAICS industry code and the 10-digit NAPCS product codes.
The FTC intends to update the instructions for the HSR Form to reflect the changes made to the revenue reporting requirements.
What this Means:
Companies expecting to file an HSR after September 25 will need to familiarize themselves with the new 10-digit NAPCS codes and the updated 6-digit 2017 NAICS codes, and may want to update their databases to be in a position to file promptly when the new codes take effect on September 25.
Subscribe
