In the last two years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) brought, and won, several litigated merger cases by establishing narrow markets comprised of a subset of customers for a product. This narrow market theory, known as price discrimination market definition, allowed the agencies to allege markets in which the merging parties faced few rivals and, therefore, estimate high post-merger market shares. By their nature, price discrimination markets can lead to a challenge of a high-value deal where only a small number of the merging parties’ customers are allegedly harmed. Given the increased usage by the agencies and now judicial acceptance of the theory, counsel for merging parties must consider the potential for price discrimination market definition in assessing the antitrust risks for transactions.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division have been actively challenging mergers and acquisitions (M&A) across a variety of industries where there is not a viable or acceptable remedy to mitigate the agencies’ competitive concerns. Parties to M&A transactions that the FTC or the DOJ believe are likely to harm competition may remedy those concerns by divesting certain businesses or assets. The parties may divest the business or assets that raise anticompetitive concerns and proceed with the remainder of the transaction. Divestitures in horizontal mergers (i.e., transactions between competitors) aim to maintain or replace the competition in the relevant market that might otherwise be lost as a result of the transaction.
Proposed divestitures are evaluated on the particular facts of the case and must be robust enough to present a viable competitor. Recent transactions demonstrate that the FTC and DOJ will reject divestiture proposals that the agency finds insufficient, putting the entire deal at risk for merging parties. Before proposing a remedy to the FTC or DOJ, parties should keep the following in mind: (1) in today’s enforcement environment, the agencies are more demanding in seeking effective remedies; (2) the agencies are more likely to require a buyer up front, particularly if the parties seek to divest assets that are less than an entire on-going, stand-alone business, or the to-be-divested assets are at risk of deterioration pending divestiture; and (3) a buyer must be competitively and financially viable.
On July 25, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted comments to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) supporting a proposed rule only affecting VA facilities that would authorize Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) to provide primary health care services without the mandatory supervision of physicians, regardless of state or local laws, with limited exceptions. Currently, APRNs in the employ of the VA are subject to VA requirements as well as various regulations on a state-by-state basis, with physician supervision required in over half of the states. Under Proposed Rule RIN 2900-AP44, APRNs that meet VA standards would have the authority to provide a described list of services without such physician supervision.
While the FTC acknowledged the important role of federal and state legislators in determining the “best balance of policy priorities,” the FTC has expressed skepticism of state laws requiring physician supervision. They have noted that such requirements “may raise competition concerns because they effectively give one group of health care professionals the ability to restrict access to the market by another competing group of health care professionals, thereby denying health care consumers the benefits of greater competition.” In fact, the FTC argued that physician supervision requirements may increase the cost of services that APRNs could provide, and by relaxing such requirements, consumers “may gain access to services that would otherwise be unavailable.” This increased access could also address shortages in access to primary and specialty care. As the FTC noted, the US has current and projected health care workforce shortages, particularly in primary care physicians, and the VA has emphasized the need to provide care to veterans in rural areas who have limited access to specialty services, some of which APRNs could provide.
Additionally, the FTC commented that the proposed rule could yield information about models of health care delivery. Under the current system, the VA’s use of APRNs is limited by state regulation. By preempting the state requirements, the FTC argued that the VA would be free to “innovate and experiment with models of team-based care.”
Interestingly, the proposed rule only applies within the scope of VA employment, which falls outside of “competition in the private sector” for which the FTC acknowledged it is typically concerned. But in this instance, the FTC concluded that the VA’s actions could positively impact competition in the health care service provider markets by encouraging entry that could “broaden the availability of health care services” outside of the VA’s system.
This is another example of antitrust regulators’ interest in occupational licensing and competition concerns generally. Just as this letter encourages competition between physicians and nurses for certain health care services, last month, US Department of Justice (DOJ) and FTC jointly submitted a letter encouraging competition between lawyers and non-lawyers in the provision of legal services in North Carolina. We previously analyzed that letter, and other important developments in occupational licensing that have occurred since February 2015, when the Supreme Court affirmed an FTC decision not to apply state action antitrust immunity for [...]
McDermott’s Antitrust M&A Snapshotis 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.
United States: January – June Update
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) have been actively challenging mergers and acquisitions in the first half of 2016. In some instances, the parties abandoned their deal once the FTC or DOJ issued a complaint, in others, the parties entered into consent agreements with the agencies. In matters where a divestiture is an acceptable remedy, the FTC and DOJ have required robust divestitures with financially and competitively viable buyers. There is increasing pressure for broad divestitures and for upfront buyers in industries where the agencies do not have ample experience and where there may not be multiple competitive buyers willing to acquire the assets.
In merger challenges, the agencies have been successful in obtaining preliminary injunctions in Washington, DC, but have been less successful outside of their home court. The agencies have successfully argued price discrimination markets, where sales of products to a narrow group of customers were the market, and courts are accepting the agencies’ narrow market definition. We also see a trend in challenges due to innovation, where the merging parties are the market leaders in new developments and research and development in particular areas. Investigations continue to take many months, with many approaching or exceeding a year.
EU: January – June Update
In the EU, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of notified transactions to the European Commission (from 277 notifications in 2013 to 337 in 2015). Most of these transactions have been cleared by the EU regulator in Phase I without any commitments. However, there have still been a number of antitrust interventions requiring the merging parties to offer, often far-reaching, remedies. One industry has recently seen a particularly high ratio of antitrust intervention is the telecoms sector. For example, in the merger between the mobile operators Telenor and TeliaSonera, the parties abandoned the transaction due to European Commission opposition to the transaction. The European Commission publicly announced that the transaction would not have been cleared, and that the remedies offered by the companies were not convincing. A prohibition decision was also issued, despite the offered remedies, in the failed combination of Telefónica UK’s “O2” and Hutchison 3G UK’s “Three”. This transaction involved the longest merger control review by the European Commission to end up in a prohibition decision (243 calendar days, compared to the average of 157 calendar days to block a deal).
With regard to current trends in merger control remedies at the level of the European Commission, there continues to be [...]
On June 10, 2016, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly submitted a letter recommending that the North Carolina General Assembly limit the definition of the “practice of law” only to activities for which “specialized legal knowledge and training” is demonstrably necessary to protect consumers. The regulators argue that if such a definition were applied to North Carolina House Bill 436, presently under consideration, it would promote competition between lawyers and non-lawyers in the provision of legal-related services. (more…)
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.
On May 9, 2016, the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the motion by the Federal Trade Commission and Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger of Penn State Hershey Medical Center and PinnacleHealth System. The decision ends a string of victories by the FTC in recent health care merger litigation.
On May 9, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) posted an article summarizing recent developments and areas of competitive sensitivity in the acquisition of partial equity interests. Most antitrust challenges to mergers or acquisitions involve situations in which an acquiror takes control of the target company. However, substantive antitrust issues also can arise from acquisitions of less than controlling interests. The FTC has previously sought substantial remedies in acquisitions of minority interests in a competitor. These remedies have included imposing firewalls, altering companies’ ownership interests to become passive investors, or seeking divestitures.
The FTC’s post, which can be found here, outlines three ways in which partial-interest acquisitions in a competitor could lessen competition. First, an entity could use its interest—through representatives on a competitor’s board, for example—to affect decisions of the target. Second, an acquiring company’s partial ownership in its competitor could reduce the acquiring company’s incentives to compete aggressively. This feature arises because, by virtue of holding an interest in its rival, a company can still achieve an economic gain even if it does not win a competition or make a sale if the company in which it holds an equity interest obtains that business. Third, an entity could gain access to non-public, competitively sensitive information of its competitor, increasing the risk of coordinated conduct.
None of these theories are new, and they are contained in the 2010 FTC / DOJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Nevertheless, the FTC’s posting provides a helpful reminder for companies contemplating transactions that they need to evaluate not only the obvious anticompetitive effects raised by acquisitions of control, but also the less obvious theories of competitive harm.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to aggressively enforce the antitrust laws. On April 27, 2016, the FTC took action against Victrex, plc and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Invibio, Inc. and Invibio Limited (collectively, Invibio) because of exclusivity terms in its supply contracts. The consent order requires Invibio to cease and desist from enforcing most of the exclusivity terms in its current supply contracts and generally prohibits Invibio from requiring exclusivity in future contracts. Invibio is also prohibited from using other pricing strategies, such as market-share discounts, that would effectively result in exclusivity.
Exclusive dealing by a monopolist may be challenged and prohibited when the acts allow the monopolist to maintain its monopoly power. Total foreclosure is not a requirement for unlawful exclusive dealing—it simply must foreclose competition in a substantial share of the relevant market so as to adversely affect competition.
The FTC’s complaint alleged that Invibio’s exclusive dealing provisions in its customer contracts foreclosed a substantial share of the market from two entrants despite those entrants offering a similar product at lower prices. In addition to using exclusivity terms in its long term supply contracts to impede its competition and maintain its monopoly power in the worldwide market for implant-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK), the FTC complaint also alleged that Invibio used strategies to “coerce or induce device makers to accede to exclusivity terms, including threatening to discontinue PEEK supply or to withhold access to regulatory support.” (more…)
On March 23, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (SMARTER) Act by a vote of 235-171, despite strenuous objections from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) review proposed mergers and acquisitions. Currently, the FTC can challenge transactions under different processes and standards than the DOJ, and those procedures provide several advantages to the FTC. The SMARTER Act would neutralize those advantages for the FTC by: (1) eliminating the FTC’s ability to use its internal administrative proceedings to challenge unconsummated transactions; and (2) standardizing the criteria for the FTC and DOJ to obtain a preliminary injunction to block a merger in federal court.
The FTC has the authority to pursue administrative relief to challenge a transaction. Even if the FTC is denied a preliminary injunction in federal court, the agency may continue to seek to block or unwind a transaction in an administrative trial at the FTC’s own in-house court. That process creates two procedural advantages for the FTC. First, the FTC can continue to challenge a transaction even after a federal district court denies an injunction. Second, because the full trial will take place in the FTC’s court, some courts have said that the the standard the FTC uses to obtain a federal court injunction is lower than the standard the DOJ must meet. The courts will generally grant the FTC an injunction if the case “raise[s] questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground” for a full hearing “by the FTC in the first instance and ultimately by the Court of Appeals.” Under that standard, the FTC need not show a substantial likelihood of success at the trial on the merits or irreparable harm.
The DOJ can only challenge transactions in federal court proceedings. The DOJ can seek a preliminary injunction under Section 15 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 25) on the grounds that the transaction is likely to substantially lessen competition. The DOJ is subject to a traditional equitable injunction standard including criteria such as a showing of a substantial likelihood of success and the potential for irreparable harm.
Supporters of the SMARTER Act argue that reform is necessary to ensure consistent and fair application of the antitrust laws. SMARTER Act supporters also argue that courts apply a more lenient standard to the FTC for blocking a transaction than to the DOJ. However, those that oppose the SMARTER Act argue that in practice, courts impose the same standards on the FTC and DOJ during injunction hearings. Those against the SMARTER Act also argue that workload statistics compiled in the DOJ and FTC Annual Competition Reports actually demonstrate that mergers reviewed by the DOJ are more likely to be challenged or receive a Second Request than mergers reviewed by the FTC. FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez expressed concern that the SMARTER Act “risks undermining the effectiveness of the FTC.” Chairwoman Ramirez also [...]
Subscribe
