Articles Posted in Department of Justice

Still More “Suddenly Classic” Antitrust Cases from the New Merger Guidelines: General Dynamics, Marine Bancorporation and Procter & Gamble

August 7, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

As we explained in a prior post, the new draft merger Guidelines issued recently by the FTC and DOJ cite to several older court opinions that may be unfamiliar to antitrust practitioners who have been focused for decades exclusively on earlier versions of the Guidelines. In the last post, we covered two such cases, Philadelphia National Bank and Pabst. Below, we cover three more of such newly “classic cases:” General Dynamics, Marine Bancorporation and Protect & Gamble.

General Dynamics

It is not surprising that the New Guidelines cite General Dynamics seven times; after all, the case has been cited in hundreds of opinions and even more law review articles and treatises. Nor are some of the citations surprising. For example, one citation (FN 93) quotes the case for the proposition that “other pertinent factors” besides market share might mandate a conclusion that competition would not be lessened by a merger. Similarly, citations about market definition make sense because the definitions of both the product and geographic markets were contentious points in the opinion. But for reasons we explain below, the citations to the case for parts of the New Guidelines that would challenge mergers on the basis of just an increase in concentration, while accurate, seem out of step with the opinion as a whole.

General Dynamics is a 1974 opinion with the 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Stewart. Eight years before, Justice Stewart had written the dissent in Von’s Grocery. In that dissent, Justice Stewart penned one of his most famous quotes (no, not that one): “The sole consistency that I can find is that, in litigation under § 7, the Government always wins.” More substantively, Justice Stewart took issue with the majority’s market definition analysis. Instead of simply assuming a “Los Angeles grocery” market as the majority did, Justice Stewart would have applied a “housewife driving test” that, despite the antiquated name, was similar to the hypothetical monopolist test of later Guidelines. Also, instead of assuming anticompetitive effects from “high” market shares and increasing competition, as did the majority, Justice Stewart would have considered other pertinent factors, like low barriers to entry, turnover of firms, and changes to the Los Angeles population.

Eight years later, Justice Stewart applied similar concepts in General Dynamics, but this time for the majority. In this case, one Midwest coal supplier gradually purchased the voting securities of another Midwest coal producer. The DOJ produced evidence of high and increasing concentration in coal markets. Depending on the geographic market, the share represented by the top four firms went from 43-55% to 63-75% as the shares were being acquired. The lower court, however, found that there was cross-elasticity of demand among coal and other energy sources, like oil, natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy, so the proper product market was a broader “energy market.” Justice Stewart spoke approvingly of such a market analysis but, because of the analysis we describe below, found it unnecessary to opine on market definition. Significantly, the dissent agreed with the lower court that reviewing evidence of cross-elasticity of demand was appropriate; however, it thought that evidence supported a finding of a submarket for coal for certain customers, especially electric utilities. (The majority and dissent had similar disagreements about the geographic market definition.)

More important to the lower court and Justice Stewart were “other pertinent factors” that made shares of past production unhelpful in predicting future competitive effects of the merger. Here, the selling company’s reserves of coal were much smaller than its past or current production. For example, it controlled less than 1% of the coal reserves in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. As a result, its future competitive strength was much worse than a review of any current market shares would indicate. Again, the dissent did not dispute that such “other pertinent factors” were relevant to the analysis; however, it thought the facts did not support finding the seller to be so weak going forward and that much of that evidence came from post-acquisition transactions.

Given the overall facts and tone of both opinions in General Dynamics, it is odd that the New Guidelines cite it for support for challenging mergers that further a trend toward concentration. The New Guidelines accurately quote Justice Stewart’s opinion:

[The Court’s] approach to a determination of a “substantial” lessening of competition is to allow the Government to rest its case on a showing of even small increases of market share or market concentration in those industries or markets where concentration is already great or has been recently increasing…

But in the opinion, that sentence is followed by these three sentences:

…the question before us is whether the District Court was justified in finding that other pertinent factors affecting the coal industry and the business of the appellees mandated a conclusion that no substantial lessening of competition occurred or was threatened by the acquisition of United Electric. We are satisfied that the court’s ultimate finding was not in error. In Brown Shoe v. United States we cautioned that statistics concerning market share and concentration, while of great significance, were not conclusive indicators of anticompetitive effects … (cleaned up)

The New Guidelines citation to General Dynamics in its footnote 93 for the proposition that “other pertinent factors” besides concentration trends should be considered in merger analysis probably better reflects the overall tenor of the case’s opinions.

Marine Bancorporation

The Guidelines mention Marine Bancorporation seven times to highlight that when a merger eliminates a potential entrant into a concentrated market, it may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Marine Bancorp., 418 U.S. 602, 630 (1974).

The Guidelines explain that to determine whether one of the merging parties is a potential entrant, the Agencies examine:

whether one or both of the merging firms had a reasonable probability of entering the relevant market other than through an anticompetitive merger. The Agencies’ starting point for assessment of a reasonable probability of entry is objective evidence. For instance whether the firm has sufficient size and resources to enter; evidence of any advantages that would make the firm well-situated to enter; evidence that the firm has successfully expanded into other markets in the past or already participates in adjacent or related markets; evidence that the firm has an incentive to enter; or evidence that industry participants recognize the company as a potential entrant Marine Bancorp., 418 U.S. 636–37 (1974); and,
whether such entry offered “a substantial likelihood of ultimately producing deconcentration of [the] market or other significant procompetitive effects.” If the merging firm had a reasonable probability of entering the concentrated relevant market, the Agencies will usually presume that the resulting deconcentration and other benefits that would have resulted from its entry would be competitively significant, unless there is substantial direct evidence that the competitive effect would be de minimis.

This is known as actual potential competition. The Guidelines also describe that under perceived potential competition, the acquisition of a firm that is perceived by market participants as a potential entrant can substantially lessen competition by eliminating or relieving competitive pressure. And in FN 42 the draft includes that this elimination of present competitive pressure is sometimes known as an anticompetitive “edge effect” or a loss of “perceived potential competition.” E.g., Marine Bancorp., 418 U.S. at 639.

Procter & Gamble

The Guidelines mention Procter & Gamble six times to explain how the Agencies examine (i) whether one of the merging firms already has a dominant position that the merger may reinforce, and (ii) whether the merger may extend or entrench that dominant position to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in another market.

The Guidelines highlight that to identify whether one of the merging firms already has a dominant position, the agencies look to whether (i) there is direct evidence that one or both merging firms has the power to raise price, reduce quality, or otherwise impose or obtain terms that they could not obtain but- for that dominance, or (ii) one of the merging firms possesses at least 30 percent market share. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568, 575 (1967).

If this inquiry reveals that at least one of the merging firms already has a dominant position, the Agencies then examine whether the merger would either entrench that position or extend it into additional markets. As a mechanism of whether a merger may entrench a dominant position, the Guidelines include, among others, entry barriers. A merger “may substantially reduce the competitive structure of the industry by raising entry barriers and by dissuading the smaller firms from aggressively competing.” Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568, 578 (1967).

As in the case of General Dynamics, it is puzzling to see how the Guidelines cherry pick with the citations of Marine Bancorp and Protect & Gamble. Indeed, both cases discuss potential entry in concentrated markets and whether one of the merging firms already has a dominant position that the merger may extend to substantially lessen competition. But they also criticize––at length––the PNB 30% structural presumption and lack of economic analysis, something the Agencies completely ignore in this draft.

Continue reading →

More “Suddenly Classic” Antitrust Cases from the New Merger Guidelines: Philadelphia National Bank and Pabst

August 1, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

As we explained in a prior post, the new draft merger Guidelines issued recently by the FTC and DOJ cite to several older court opinions that might not be familiar to antitrust practitioners who have been focused for decades exclusively on earlier versions of the Guidelines. Below, we cover two more of such newly “classic cases:” Philadelphia National Bank and its presumptions about market shares and competition and Pabst, which the new Guidelines cite for its language on trends in concentration.

Philadelphia National Bank (PNB)

The New Guidelines mention PNB seven times to basically highlight the Supreme Court’s position that possible economies from a merger cannot be used as a defense to illegality. And they do so by including a footnote with the well-known cite from the same case: “Congress was aware that some mergers which lessen competition may also result in economies, but it struck the balance in favor of protecting competition.”

The Guidelines fully develop this argument in Guideline 1. This Guideline first explains that concentration refers to the number and relative size of rivals competing to offer a product or service to a group of customers. It further states that when a merger between competitors significantly increases concentration and results in a highly concentrated market, the Agencies presume that a merger may substantially lessen competition based on market structure alone.

The entire text of the Guideline is grounded on the PNB case and what Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter mentioned in June 2023 during his speech at the Brookings Institution’s Center on Regulation and Markets Event “Promoting Competition in Banking”

In that case, in 1961 the DOJ challenged the merger of the second and third largest commercial banks in metropolitan Philadelphia. The district court allowed the merger that would have created a bank with 30 percent of the relevant market, raising the two-firm concentration ratio from 44 percent to 59 percent. The Supreme court reversed the case and established the precedent that certain mergers are so clearly likely to lessen competition that they must be prohibited in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary:

[A] merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially that it must be enjoined in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects. 374 U.S. at 363

In other words, without attempting to specify the smallest market share that would still be considered to threaten undue concentration, the Supreme Court confirmed that a post-merger market share of 30 percent or higher unquestionably gave rise to the presumption of illegality. Later on, in General Dynamics––a case we will discuss in our next article––the Court approved a merger with market shares above 30% because “other pertinent factors” indicated the merger would not substantially lessen competition. (The New Guidelines do not discuss that aspect of General Dynancs, despite mentioning the case in the same footnote.)

That’s why for the last 40 years the Government has been making its prima facie case by simply showing 30 percent of the market is involved in the merger, abandoned that 30 percent presumption, focusing instead on competitive effects and other relevant factors that might affect them, such as the structure of the market and potential entry.

As former Commissioner Joshua D Wright and Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in Philadelphia National Bank: Bad Economics, Bad Law, Good Riddance:

The problem for today’s courts in applying this semicentenary standard is that the field of industrial organization has long since moved beyond the structural presumption upon which the standard is based. The point is not that 30 percent is an outdated threshold above which to presume adverse effects upon competition; rather, it is that market structure is an inappropriate starting point for the analysis of likely competitive effects. Market structure and competitive effects are not systematically correlated. Nor does the rebuttable nature of the 30 percent presumption reduce it to a mere annoyance, an exercise the clutters up litigation but is soon enough dispatched by the defendant’s showing; the practical effect of beginning the analysis of a merger with an essentially irrelevant presumption is to shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff, where it rightfully resides, to the defendant, as though the law prohibited all mergers except those that could be proved acceptable by their proponents.

The article describes all the flaws about this outdated structural presumption. Despite those flaws, PNB has never been officially overruled and these New Guidelines might just give it new life, at least until the courts get involved.

Pabst

The new Guidelines cite U.S. v. Pabst three times, all in connection with the new Guideline that the effect of a merger “may be substantially to lessen competition” if it “contributes to a trend toward concentration.” The 1966 case reversed a lower court and found that evidence of the probable anticompetitive effect of the merger of Pabst and its brewery competitor Blatz in 1958 was sufficient to find a Section 7 violation.

The key issue was whether the DOJ had done enough to show one or more of these geographic markets: the entire United States; the three-state area of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan; or just Wisconsin. Writing for the Court, Justice Black found that the evidence of “the steady trend toward concentration in the beer industry” was sufficient for a violation, no matter how the geographic market was defined.

Continue reading →

Agencies Issue New Draft Merger Guidelines and Create More Classic Antitrust Cases

July 24, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

On July 19, 2023, the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division issued the draft of their long-anticipated Merger Guidelines. Like prior iterations, these Guidelines are meant to explain to potential merging parties how the agencies will evaluate their proposed transactions. Earlier versions included input from noted experts across the antitrust community and so also proved persuasive to many courts evaluating challenges to mergers by the agencies. Time will tell if these Guidelines have the same power when they are finalized after the comment period expires in late September.

Below, we provide a very short summary of these new Guidelines. But one notable feature of these Guidelines is their heavy reliance on caselaw, much of it decades old, rather than near-exclusive reliance on the latest economic thinking. The result is that many cases that antitrust practitioners might not have read in years, if ever, might suddenly be important again. Because we here at Bona Law have frequently written about such “classic antitrust cases,” we will cover two of those “suddenly classic” cases below and a few more in subsequent articles.

New Guidelines Summary: Antagonism Towards Mergers

Government agencies usually challenge proposed mergers and similar transactions under Clayton Act Section 7. That statute requires a challenger to show that the effect of the transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.” Key here is that the statute does not require proof that the bad effect has already happened or even that it is certain to happen, only that it probably will happen in the future. (We covered this topic in a recent Fifth Circuit amicus brief supporting Illumina.) So these new draft Guidelines, like all other prior versions, explain the factors that the agencies will consider when making that prediction.

Compared to prior Guidelines, however, these new draft Guidelines list more and different reasons why the agencies will challenge mergers. They list thirteen different factors, violation of any one of which would be a reason to try to stop the merger. For example, the prior Guidelines often started with market definition and concentration levels but then analyzed further to see if those factors really would lead to competitive harm. These new draft Guidelines, by contrast, expand the ways markets might be defined; return to lower thresholds for determining when markets are “highly concentrated” and the transaction will significantly increase concentration; and explain that mergers involving highly concentrated markets or firms with 30% or more share of the market almost certainly will be challenged without further analysis. Also, transactions in markets trending toward consolidation will be challenged. Finally, mergers that substantially reduce competition in labor markets will be challenged. If this draft represents how the agencies will review mergers, look for much longer reviews and many more challenges.

How HSR Shifted the Focus of Merger Review Away from the Courts

Before Hart-Scott-Rodino was passed in 1976, the only way for the agencies to stop a proposed merger was to go to court. The result was a decent number of court opinions on merger law, including several from the Supreme Court.

HSR triggered a requirement for parties to most large transactions to file their intentions with the two federal agencies and allow review before closing. (We recently discussed the proposed changes to HSR.) While only a small percentage of such filings triggered close reviews, those extended reviews often took many months before the agencies decided to challenge them in court. By that time, many parties decided to abandon the transactions. The results of these process changes were fewer merger opinions from courts and a greater emphasis on the analysis at the agencies. As that analysis, as embedded in prior versions of the Guidelines, evolved away from that used by courts in earlier cases, a significant gap opened between the opinions and the Guidelines. Now that this new draft is, in many ways, returning to the analysis of those earlier opinions and citing many of them for support, antitrust practitioners will need to learn, or relearn, some of those old cases (as we predicted many months ago).

New Classic Cases – Brown Shoe

One of the most important classic antitrust case is Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, mentioned more than a dozen times by the new Guidelines for numerous propositions, including vertical mergers and, especially, market definition.

In Brown Shoe, the government challenged the merger between Brown Shoe and Kinney on horizontal restraints and vertical foreclosure issues. The parties argued different market definitions. The United States proposed a broad product market including all shoes. Defendants, on the contrary, segmented the product market by age and sex of customers, together with the price and quality of the shoes.

The district court concluded that men’s shoes, women’s shoes, and children’s shoes were different product markets and determined that competition was “sufficiently threatened in these submarkets to condemn the merger.” Defendants challenged the issue of market definition all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court and basically adopted the district court’s reasoning on the market definition issue, with a particular focus on the “interchangeability” and the “unique characteristics and uses” tests.

In the Court own words:

The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it. However, within this broad market, well defined submarkets may exist which, in themselves, constitute product markets for antitrust purposes. The boundaries of such a submarket may be determined by examining such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product’s peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors.

As eloquently highlighted in Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application by Areeda and Hovenkamp, this case––while still valid––has a limited application on today’s antitrust merger analysis:

[w]hile the Supreme Court insisted on a market definition, it did so for a very different purpose than we use merger analysis for today. To be sure, in a horizontal merger case it is still important to know where output movements are threatened among the post-merger firm and its competitors, but the movement contemplated in Brown Shoe was in the opposite direction from what we consider now. Today the concern is that the post-merger firm might be able to raise prices without causing too much output to be lost to its rivals. In contrast, the Brown Shoe concern was that by reducing its price (or improving quality at the same price), the post-merger firm could deprive rivals of output, thus forcing them out altogether or relegating them to niche markets.

As a rough approximation the boundaries of such a market might be about the same as the boundaries of a relevant market under today’s definitions. When one takes more dynamic considerations into account, however, there are fundamental differences. For example, the focus on excess capacity in merger cases today typically examines excess capacity held by the post-merger firms’ rivals to see if their output increase will offset the post-merger firm’s anticipated output reduction. [52] By contrast, under the Brown Shoe rationale one might want to see if the post-merger firm has sufficient excess capacity so as to be able to steal sales from smaller rivals. Under modern analysis in product-differentiated markets we want to know whether rivals will be able to reposition themselves closer to the post-merger firm, thus increasing competitive pressures on it. By contrast, under the Brown Shoe analysis, rival firms configure themselves away from the post-merger firm in order to avoid competing with it on price. Indeed, this concern that smaller rivals would be relegated to niche markets played an important part in the litigation. [53]

Further, under the modern analysis that identifies express or tacit collusion as the feared harm, the merger tends to affect all of the firms in the market the same way. That is, if the merger tends to make collusion or interdependent pricing more likely, the non merging firms will benefit as well as the merging firms and price will increase across the market. In very sharp contrast, the analysis in Brown Shoe saw the post-merger firm as benefitting at the expense of nonmerging rivals in the same market. In this sense Brown Shoe was very much a “unilateral effects” case—the benefits of the merger accrued to Brown Shoe alone.

Further, today’s merger concern with price increases as opposed to price reductions makes relevant a new set of questions that were simply not within the purview of Brown Shoe, namely, what are the effects of a merger between relatively adjacent firms in a product-differentiated market. [54]

New Classic Cases – Falstaff

The new Guidelines cite U.S. v. Falstaff four times in the section discussing potential competition. That 1973 case, and the new Guidelines, discussed both varieties of potential competition: actual potential competition and perceived potential competition. (We discussed both varieties, as well as Falstaff, in the context of the Meta/Within merger here and here.)

Continue reading →

End of an Era: The FTC Proposes Significant Changes to the HSR Form

July 6, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

During the last week of June 2023, the Federal Trade Commission proposed making the most drastic changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino form since the form was created in 1978. According to FTC Chair Lina M. Khan’s statement, joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya “This marks the first time in 45 years that the agencies have undertaken a top-to-bottom review of the form that businesses must fill out when pursuing an acquisition that must be notified in accordance with the HSR Act.”

As we have previously described, HSR is the program under which the parties to most large transactions must submit the form and certain documents to the US antitrust agencies prior to closing the deal. The HSR form has always been short but complicated, with decades of formal regulations and informal interpretations, even lore, behind each of its sections.

Much of that history will go by the wayside if the final changes are anything like this initial proposal. The form — along with the documents and data it requires — will more closely resemble the much more onerous premerger notification schemes in other jurisdictions and will significantly lengthen the time and increase the expense of future HSR Act filings. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not envision the higher thresholds or “short forms” for obviously benign transactions present in those other jurisdictions.

The FTC will be accepting comments on its current proposal until late August. It will consider those comments before issuing the final form and instructions, likely later this year. While the details of the new form might change in the coming months, most of the current proposals likely will survive. To begin to prepare for that new day, here are some of the highlights:

Provision of details about transaction rationale and details surrounding investment vehicles or corporate relationships. This might include diagrams of a transaction’s structure, the timeline for the acquisition, and all related agreements between the parties at the time of the filing, among others;
The disclosure of required foreign merger control filings becomes mandatory;
Provision of information describing horizontal overlaps, and non-horizontal business relationships such as supply or licensing agreements;

Provision of projected revenue streams, transactional analyses and internal documents describing market conditions, and structure of entities involved such as private equity investments. This means an expansion on the scope of 4(c) and (d) documents, including, for example, drafts (not just final versions) of responsive documents and other non-transaction related documents;
Provision of details regarding previous acquisitions undertaken within the ten years prior to the acquisition filed, including information about all officers and board members, significant creditors and holders of non-voting securities, or minority shareholders (including now minority investors from companies controlled by the ultimate parent company), among many others;
Disclosure of information that screens for labor market issues by classifying employees based on current Standard Occupational Classification system categories.
Disclosure of subsidies from foreign entities of concern that Congress believes can distort the competitive process or otherwise change the business strategies of a subsidized firm in ways that undermine competition following an acquisition. Under the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, the agencies are required to collect information on subsidies received from certain foreign governments or entities that are strategic or economic threats to the United States.

Implementation of anything like these changes will move the HSR system even further from what Congress envisioned when it passed HSR in 1976. Then, the bill’s sponsors predicted that only the 150 largest deals each year or so would require a filing — over the last twelve months, nearly 2100 filings were made. Congress envisioned that even the “second requests” would require only documents and data that had already been “assembled and analyzed by [the parties]” — now, second requests usually take nearly a year to complete. These changes to the initial form and submission promise to add weeks to every filing, not just the problematic ones, as the parties assemble documents and data that they saw no need to analyze. Odd that the FTC sees as necessary such drastic changes to a notification program that its Introductory Guide has described as a “success” since at least 2009.

Continue reading →

Bona Law Helps Deliver Successful 2023 Spring Meeting for the ABA Antitrust Section

April 3, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steve Cernak, Dylan Carson, Kristen Harris

Back in person again, the 71st edition of the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section’s annual Spring Meeting did not disappoint and Bona Law was there for the formal and informal conversations that will help shape antitrust enforcement in the U.S. and abroad. With over 3700 registrants from over 60 countries and dozens of panels, events, and receptions — formal and informal — the 2023 Spring Meeting was the place to be for antitrust and consumer protection lawyers last week. Bona Law attorneys Steve Cernak, Dylan Carson, and Kristen Harris represented the firm and engaged with numerous public antitrust enforcers, private practitioners and in-house antitrust counsel from across the globe on a variety of hot topics. Next year’s event promises to continue this tradition when Cernak becomes Antitrust Section Chair-elect in August 2023 and Harris joins him in Section leadership.

Cernak moderated a panel of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau Directors. Our takeaway of their message is that they have no plans to slow down the aggressive antitrust and consumer protection enforcement, despite some court losses and other resistance. Some commentators had complained that this FTC was downplaying or completely ignoring economic learning. The new Director of the Bureau of Economics swatted away that claim, saying he and his economists are fully on board with the enforcement direction. Expect continued aggressive enforcement out of this FTC, with a focus on revitalizing vertical merger enforcement, the Commission’s Section 5 authority, and Robinson-Patman Act enforcement. On the DOJ side, the importance of corporate antitrust compliance programs and the future of criminal and civil monopolization cases were repeated themes on multiple panels.

The Spring Meeting attracts practitioners and enforcers with a wide range of views on antitrust enforcement priorities. An interesting vibe we picked up from panels on the Biden Administration as well as hallway conversations is the newer ideological splits. On one side are the Biden Administration enforcers and their many supporters who want to see new or revived enforcement theories or laws very different from those that have prevailed for over forty years. On the other side are the supporters of that economics-based status quo, including both Obama-era enforcers and big business types, who, while not always agreeing on specifics, have found a common opponent in the Biden Administration enforcers. The split is not the same “red v. blue” split seen elsewhere in U.S. politics and expect to see strange bedfellows for some time to come.

Continue reading →

DOJ Announces New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program Applicable to All Corporate Crimes

February 23, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Jon Cieslak and Molly Donovan

For the first time, there is a nationwide Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program applicable to any corporate misconduct prosecutable by a US Attorney. As detailed below, companies that make a qualifying Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) are eligible for “resolutions under more favorable terms than if the government had learned of the misconduct through other means” – in other words, a criminal guilty plea could be avoided in exchange for a VSD.

To qualify as a VSD, the disclosure must be:

Voluntary. There must not be a pre-existing obligation to disclose pursuant to regulation, contract or prior DOJ resolution (e.g., a non-prosecution agreement).

Prompt. The disclosure must be prior to an “imminent threat” of disclosure or investigation; prior to the misconduct being public or otherwise known to the government; within a “reasonably prompt time” after the company becomes aware of the misconduct.

Substantive. The disclosure must include “all relevant facts” known to the company at the time of the disclosure, even if the internal investigation is in a preliminary stage. As new facts become known, they should be reported as the investigation unfolds.

In exchange for a VSD, the Department will not seek a guilty plea so long as:

The company “fully cooperated” with the DOJ. The terms of cooperation, including how long and to what degree cooperation is required, are not specified.

The company “timely and appropriately remediated” the conduct. Remediation includes the payment of “all restitution” to victims.

There are no aggravating factors, i.e., the conduct did not present a grave threat to national health or safety; the conduct was not “deeply pervasive” throughout the company and did not involve “current executive management.” Whether the knowledge of a corporate executive constitutes their “involvement” is not specified.

In the event of an aggravating factor, a guilty plea is not required automatically, but the DOJ will “assess the relevant facts” to determine an “appropriate resolution” on a case-by-case basis.

In the end, where the VSD is deemed satisfactory, the criminal resolution “could include a declination, non-prosecution agreement, or deferred prosecution” in lieu of a guilty plea. In the event the Department does choose to impose a criminal penalty, it “will not impose a criminal penalty that is greater than 50% below the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range.”

Finally, if, by the time of the resolution, the company has implemented an “effective compliance program,” the Department will not require the imposition of a monitor. These decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis in the USAO’s sole discretion.

As a concept and seemingly in practice, the Program shares many similarities with the DOJ Antitrust Division Leniency Policy and Procedures, under which antitrust lawyers have been operating for years, perfecting the art of timely self-disclosure and appropriate cooperation with the Department for companies that choose to self-disclose antitrust felonies. As a result, we as antitrust practitioners could bring unique experience to companies weighing the costs and benefits of participating in the new VSD Program for non-antitrust crimes and, if companies do self-disclose, how to participate and advocate within the Program effectively.

Continue reading →

Domestic Companies and Their Execs Plead Guilty to Criminal Price-Fixing

February 16, 2023 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Jon Cieslak & Molly Donovan

Two individuals and four of their corporate entities pleaded guilty to an antitrust conspiracy to fix the prices of DVDs and Blu-Rays sold on Amazon’s platform during the 2016-2019 time period.

According to the plea agreements, the defendants “engaged in discussions, transmitted across state lines both orally and electronically, with representatives of other sellers of DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs on the Amazon Marketplace. During these discussions, the defendant[s] reached agreements to suppress and eliminate competition for the sale of DVDs and Blue-Ray Discs . . . by fixing prices” paid by consumers throughout the United States. Further details about the operation of the conspiracy are not public.

The total affected commerce done by the six guilty-plea defendants is $2.875 million. The agreed-to fines imposed against the corporate defendants range from $68,000 to $234,000, some payable in installments. Sentencing for the individuals is forthcoming with the plea agreements specifying that the Department of Justice is free to argue for a period of incarceration to be served by each of the individuals at issue.

The action is pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. It serves as a reminder that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division will not excuse price-fixing by relatively small companies, even if the volume of affected commerce is also relatively small.

Continue reading →

Bid-Rigging is a Per Se Violation of the Antitrust Laws

December 23, 2022 | Bona Law PC

Author: Jarod Bona

You can buy and sell products or services in many different ways in a particular market.

For example, if you want to purchase some whey protein powder, you can walk into a store, go to the protein or smoothie-ingredient section, examine the prices of the different brands, and if one of them is acceptable to you, carry that protein powder to the register and pay the listed price.

Similarly, if you want to purchase a drone from New Bee Drone, you find the manufacturer’s product in a store or online and pay the listed price. Oftentimes products like this, from a specific manufacturer, are the same price wherever you look because of resale price maintenance or a Colgate policy (to be clear, I am not aware of whether New Bee Drone has any such program or policy). But these vertical price arrangements are not the subject of this article.

Another approach—and the true subject of this article—is to accept bids to purchase a product or service. Governments often send out what are called Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to fulfill the joint goals of obtaining the best combination of price and service/product and to minimize favoritism (which doesn’t always work).

But private companies and individuals might also request bids through RFPs. Have you ever renovated your house and sought multiple bids from contractors? If so, that is what we are talking about.

What is Bid-Rigging?

Let’s say you are a bidder and you know that two other companies are also bidding to supply tablets and related services to a business that provides its employees with tablets. The bids are blind, which means you don’t know what the other companies will bid.

You will likely calculate your own costs, add some profit margin, try to guess what the other companies will bid, then bid the best combination of price, product, and services that you can so the buyer picks your company.

This approach puts the buyer in a good position because each of the bidders doesn’t know what the others will bid, so each potential seller is motivated to put together the best offer they can. The buyer can then pick which one it likes best.

But instead of bidding blind, what if you met ahead of time with the other two bidding companies and talked about what you were going to bid? You could, in fact, decide among the three of you which one of you will win this bid, agreeing to allow the others to win bids with other buying companies. In doing this, you will save both money and hassle.

The reason is that you don’t have to put forth your best offer—you just have to bid something that the buyer will take if it is the best of the three bids. You can arrange among the three bidders for the other two bidders to either not bid (which may arouse suspicion) or you could arrange for them to bid a much worse package, so your package looks the best. The three bidders can then rotate this arrangement for other requests for proposals. Or you offer each other subcontracts from the “winner.”

If you did this, you’d save a lot of money, in the short run.

Of course, in the medium and long run, you might learn more about criminal antitrust law and end up in jail. You could also find yourself on the wrong side of civil antitrust litigation.

This is what is called bid-rigging. It is one of the most severe antitrust violations—so much so that the courts have designated it a per se antitrust violation.

Bid rigging is also a criminal antitrust violation that can lead to jail time. And it often leads to civil antitrust litigation too. Many years ago, when I was still with DLA Piper, I spent a lot of time on a case that included bid-rigging allegations in the insurance and insurance brokerage industries called In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

Continue reading →

If I Were You…I’d Listen to this Podcast about Government Investigative Subpoenas

November 26, 2022 | Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

A new episode of the “If I Were You” podcast is here! You can listen to it here. Featuring Bona Law partner Jon Cieslak.

This Episode Is About: Investigative Subpoenas

Why: In-house lawyers need to know what to do upon receiving an investigative subpoena in an antitrust or white-collar matter.

The Five Bullets: In-house lawyers, if I were you, I would know the following about subpoenas…

Continue reading →

Antitrust for Kids: Attempted Monopolization and Meatballs

November 14, 2022 | Bona Law PC

Author: Molly Donovan

Nathan is nine. His grandmother makes excellent meatballs using an age-old family recipe. Together, Nathan and grandma decide to can the meatballs and sell them to their neighbors on the north side of town—just in time for the holidays as a turkey side dish.

Things went great until Nathan’s friend from school, Nicole, also started selling meatballs with help from her grandma. What are the chances? Fortunately, Nicole targeted sales on her side of town (the south side), so that the two meatball-preneurs didn’t directly butt heads.

Wanting to keep things that way, Nathan asked Nicole to make the arrangement official by forming a “strategic partnership”—the gist of it being that Nicole keep her meatballs out of the north side and Nathan keep his out of the south. Nathan even offered to compensate Nicole for any lost business she suffered from the arrangement, and to keep up appearances, Nathan would arrange a few sham transactions to make it look as though each meatball maker had a few sales in the other’s territory.

The glitch, unforeseeable to Nathan, was that Nicole’s dad works for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. Well versed on the Division’s leniency program since birth, Nicole naturally reported the conduct to the government promptly—before agreeing to Nathan’s proposed deal.

And that was all it took. Although there was no meeting of the minds, so that Nathan couldn’t get nabbed for a Sherman Act Section 1 violation (criminal conspiracy), he did get tagged for a Section 2 violation—attempted monopolization. Poor Nathan was the youngest defendant ever to plead guilty to an antitrust felony. His sentence remains pending.

Moral of the Story: This is based on a true story! Nathan Zito, president of a paving and asphalt business pled guilty in October to attempted monopolization of the highway crack-sealing services in Montana and Wyoming based on his proposal to a competitor that they allocate markets by geography. Although the competitor was already cooperating with the DOJ, precluding a prosecution for Section 1, Nathan did plead guilty to attempted monopolization and will be subject to fines and imprisonment at his sentencing in February.

Continue reading →