Tag: merger

Tempur Sealy Acquisition of Mattress Firm: A Vertical Bridge Too Far for the FTC?

In a deal announced on May 9, Tempur Sealy International, Inc., the world’s largest mattress manufacturer, has agreed to acquire Houston-based Mattress Firm Group, Inc., the largest U.S. brick-and-mortar bedding retailer, with more than 2,300 locations and a robust e-commerce platform. The companies hope to finalize the $40 billion deal in the second half of 2024.

Following pre-merger notification of the deal last October, the FTC is reportedly taking a deep dive into the mattress industry to assess whether the transaction is likely to harm competition. The depth of the investigation itself signals a departure from the antitrust agencies’ traditional approach to “vertical” mergers in which firms in the same industry but in non-overlapping market segments (such as manufacturing and retailing the same product category) benefit from a soft presumption of legality. Customarily, vertical integration was perceived to be benign, if not somehow “efficiency enhancing.”

Whatever the merits of applying such leniency to traditional supply chains of widgets, it does not serve competition policy well in an economy dominated by technology-driven platforms that serve several enormous groups of customers at once. In today’s markets, non-overlapping vertical arrangements can severely affect whether rival firms can gain access to inputs, markets, or prospective customers.

Evidence of the FTC’s awareness of the potential for vertical mergers to cause competitive harm abounds. On September 15, 2021, the FTC withdrew the FTC/Department of Justice 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines and Commentary. The Commission’s majority said that the 2020 Guidelines included a “flawed discussion of the purported procompetitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers, especially its treatment of the elimination of double marginalization” and by failing to address “increasing levels of consolidation across the economy.”

Mattresses and Widgets

A course correction is borne out by the Commission’s recent challenges to several proposed vertical mergers, including Nvidia Corp.’s attempted acquisition of Arm Ltd., Lockheed Martin Corporation’s attempted acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., Microsoft Corp.’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., and Illumina, Inc.’s acquisition of GRAIL, Inc. After the parties abandoned the Nvidia/Arm acquisition, the FTC’s press release was effusive: “This result is particularly significant because it represents the first abandonment of a litigated vertical merger in many years,” the Commission said.

Enter the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm transaction, a vertical acquisition in a product category whose markets resemble widgets more than online merchandising or payment networks. Tempur Sealy became the world’s largest mattress manufacturer in 2012, when Tempur-Pedic acquired Sealey Corp. for $1.3 billion. The company currently earns revenues of $5 billion a year, almost a third of the $17 billion U.S. mattress market. Mattress Firm, the largest mattress retailer in the U.S. with annual revenues of $2.5 billion a year, has been owned since 2016 by German retail holding company Steinhoff International Holdings NV. The firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 2018, but quickly emerged the following month after closing 700 stores.

The merging parties are no strangers to one another, having engaged in a commercial relationship for the past 35 years. In 2017, Tempur Sealy sued Mattress Firm for selling mattresses that infringed on the Tempur-Pedic line-up, but in 2019, after its emergence from bankruptcy, Mattress Firm and Tempur Sealy struck a long-term partnership agreement. A merger of the two firms has been under discussion in one form or another for most of the past decade.

Public statements by the parties stress the complementarity of the deal, which they describe as combining “Tempur Sealy’s extensive product development and manufacturing capabilities with vertically integrated retail.” The merged entity will end up with about 3,000 retail stores, 30 e-commerce platforms, 71 manufacturing facilities, and 4 R&D facilities around the world. It is the kind of combination of complementary businesses that not long ago might not have even earned a Second Request from the antitrust agencies.

The FTC, which at least since last December has been investigating the potential effects on the mattress industry of a merger between the two market leaders, issued a Second Request earlier this month. By February, the Commission had already interviewed executives from the top 20 mattress manufacturers, according to a report in Furniture Today (February 2, 2023).

Disruptors and Goliaths

The FTC is likely to discover a large and growing global industry undergoing significant changes in how mattresses are designed, marketed, and sold in reaction to changing consumer preferences.

Several online mattress-in-a-box companies have disrupted the industry. Today, nearly half of all consumers purchases are online. They will also find fairly low barriers to entry into both brick-and-mortar and online retailing and mattress manufacturing. Their review of the Tempur Sealy/Mattress Firm transaction will also encounter two players in the market with a long history of cooperation.

With 20 manufacturers significant enough to interview, the Commission would appear to be faced with a fairly competitive market – one in which little or no foreclosure of rivals to the ability to obtain inputs or the availability of channels of distribution to reach consumers will result from the proposed transaction. Additional competitive pressure comes from Amazon, which began selling its own mattresses in 2018 as part of the Amazon Essentials line, and Walmart, which introduced its own mattress-in-box brand, Allswell, available online and in stores.

On balance, the acquisition of Mattress Firm by Tempur Sealy would not appear to raise significant antitrust issues. A challenge to this transaction by the FTC may be a vertical bridge too far. That is no doubt the assessment reached by Scott Thompson, chairman and CEO of Tempur Sealy, who expressed confidence in clearing the FTC’s antitrust review, “either in the traditional sense or through litigation.”

© MoginRubin LLP

For more Antitrust and FTC news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FTC Announces 2020 Thresholds for Merger Control Filings Under HSR Act and Interlocking Directorates Under the Clayton Act

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has announced its annual revisions to the dollar jurisdictional thresholds in the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (“HSR Act”); the revised thresholds will become effective 30 days after the date of their publication in the Federal Register.  These changes increase the dollar thresholds necessary to trigger the HSR Act’s premerger notification reporting requirements.  The FTC also increased the thresholds for interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act, effective as of January 21, 2020.

Revised HSR Thresholds

Under the HSR Act, parties involved in proposed mergers, acquisitions of voting securities, unincorporated interests or assets, or other business combinations (e.g., joint ventures, exclusive license deals) that meet certain thresholds must report the contemplated transactions to the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unless an exemption applies.  The parties to a proposed transaction that requires notification under the HSR Act must observe a statutorily prescribed waiting period (generally 30 days) before closing.  Under the revised thresholds, transactions valued at $94 million or less are not reportable under the HSR Act.

A transaction closing on or after the date the revised thresholds become effective may be reportable if it meets the following revised criteria:

Size of Transaction Test

The acquiring person will hold, as a result of the transaction, an aggregate total amount of voting securities, unincorporated interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $376 million;

or

The acquiring person will hold, as a result of the transaction, an aggregate total amount of voting securities, unincorporated interests, or assets of the acquired person valued in excess of $94million but not more than $376 million, and the Size of Person thresholds below are met.

Size of Person Test

One party (including the party’s ultimate parent entity and its controlled subsidiaries) has at least $188 million in total assets or annual sales, and the other has at least $18.8 million in total assets or annual sales. If the acquired party is not “engaged in manufacturing,” and is not controlled by an entity that is, the test applied to the acquired side is annual sales of $188 million or total assets of $18.8 million.

 The full list of the revised thresholds is as follows:

Original Threshold

2019 Threshold

2020 Revised Threshold
(Effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register)

$10 million

$18 million

$18.8 million

$50 million

$90 million

$94 million

$100 million

$180 million

$188 million

$110 million

$198  million

$206.8 million

$200 million

$359.9 million

$376 million

$500 million

$899.8 million

$940.1 million

$1 billion

$1,799.5 million

$1,880.2 million

The filing fees for reportable transactions have not changed, but the transaction value ranges to which they apply have been adjusted as follows:

Filing Fee

Revised Size of Transaction Thresholds

$45,000

For transactions valued in excess of $94 million but less than $188 million

$125,000

For transactions valued at $188 million or greater but less than $940.1 million

$280,000

For transactions valued at $940.1 million or more

Note that the HSR dollar thresholds are only part of the analysis to determine whether a particular transaction must be reported to the FTC and DOJ.  Failure to notify the FTC and DOJ under the HSR Act remains subject to a statutory penalty of up to $43,280 per day of noncompliance.

Revised Thresholds for Interlocking Directorates

Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits one person from simultaneously serving as an officer or director of two corporations if: (1) the “interlocked” corporations each have combined capital, surplus, and undivided profits of more than $38,204,000 (up from $36,564,000); (2) each corporation is engaged in whole or in part in commerce; and (3) the corporations are “by virtue of their business and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of the antitrust laws.”1

Section 8 provides several exemptions from the prohibition on interlocks for arrangements where the competitive overlaps “are too small to have competitive significance in the vast majority of situations.”2  After the revised thresholds take effect, a corporate interlock does not violate the statute if: (1) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $3,820,400 (up from $3,656,400); (2) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2 percent of that corporation’s total sales; or (3) the competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4 percent of that corporation’s total sales.

The revised dollar thresholds for interlocking directorates of $38,204,000 and $3,820,400 will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register; there is no 30-day delay as there is for the HSR thresholds.

1   15 U.S.C. § 19(a)(1)(B).

2   S. Rep. No. 101-286, at 5-6 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4100, 4103-04.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

ARTICLE BY Joel Mitnick and Ngoc Pham Hulbig of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
For more on Hart-Scott-Rodino thresholds, see the National Law Review Antitrust Law and Trade Regulation section.

Five Tips to Mitigate Risk in Cryptocurrency Mergers and Acquisitions

Congratulations!

Your client just closed on the purchase of a cutting-edge, blockchainbased payment processing startup. Before this deal, you had heard of bitcoin and blockchain. But, you had never seen a company that actually accepted payment in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. You were a little confused by the whole idea. However, your client liked the prospect of purchasing a company that had dealt in digital assets, so you didn’t think much about it.

Arriving to the office the day after the closing, you open up your computer to learn news of a hack at one of the big bitcoin exchanges. The article explains that hackers had accessed the hot wallets on the exchange and made off with over $150 million in digital assets. News of the hack sent the price of bitcoin tumbling 15% in the four hours following the incident. Other digital assets had plunged even further. The headline jumped out at you because the company that your client just purchased used custodial wallets on the exchange to store a lot of its digital assets.

Five minutes after you finish reading the article, you get a call from your client. Sure enough, a good chunk of the digital assets that your client had just purchased were lost in the hack. To make matters worse, the new company had just lost 5 percent of its book value because of the crashing cryptocurrency market.

Volatility of Digital Assets Means Risk

The world of cryptocurrencies has matured somewhat. But, scenarios like the previous hypothetical above remain a real possibility. Indeed, 15 percent price swings in a matter of hours are still common for cryptocurrencies, also known as digital assets, especially for less established currencies. In addition to big price swings, the digital asset industry continues to face regulatory uncertainty, especially in the United States with the SEC, CFTC, FINRA and other regulators undecided about how exactly to regulate digital assets. Despite the volatility and regulatory ambiguity, for risk hungry participants, the potential for large gains has helped drive an increase in merger activity in the digital asset world during the past two years.

Acquiring or selling a company that deals heavily in digital assets presents a litigation risk. Many of the factors that increase the risk of litigation in mergers or acquisitions in the digital asset industry are outside the control of the parties to a transaction. Deal lawyers try to control for these externalities but, in the new and vibrant realm of companies who deal in cryptocurrencies, those controls can be elusive, which in turn enhances the risk of litigation.

There are, however, ways to minimize the chance of a dispute. The following are a few practical tips for transactional lawyers and litigators to help contain the risks inherent in digital asset M&As.

    • Valuation Methodology: Transaction and litigation counsel should pay close attention to valuation methods used in a digital asset transaction. Cryptocurrencies and digital tokens are new and the methods used to value them may be untested. Different digital assets have different applications, e.g., utility tokens versus value storage tokens, and valuation theories should be tailored to the transaction and assets involved. In light of these unique issues and the attendant risks, transactional lawyers should give particular scrutiny to the valuation formulas to avoid a dispute. Litigators, too, should take note of the valuation methods used since they may be fodder for a dispute. And, of course, litigators should also be aware of the possibility for a Daubert-type challenge of any expert valuation witness that may arise in a subsequent dispute.
    • Earn-Outs/Purchase Price Adjustments: Transactional lawyers should pay special attention to earn-out or purchase price adjustment provisions in a digital asset M&A deal. Valuating digital assets is difficult; thus, inclusion of an earn-out or purchase price adjustment clause might help the parties reach a deal more easily. Given the volatility of digital assets, there is a higher than typical likelihood that the value of the earn-out or purchase price adjustment will also fluctuate substantially. Litigators, in turn, should also be especially cognizant of earn-out and purchase price adjustment provisions. Earn-out provisions can be especially ripe for dispute since the earn-out periods often extend for years after closing. While long earn-out periods might not present problems in more traditional fields, the fast pace of change and high levels of volatility in the digital asset industry mean that long earn-out periods are particularly susceptible to disagreement.
    • Reverse Break Up Fees: Transactional lawyers should consider including a reverse breakup fee or a reverse termination fee. These are fees paid by the buyer if the buyer breaches the governing agreements or is unable to close the transaction. For example, imagine you represent the seller in a deal set to close in three days when news breaks about a lawsuit filed by a state attorney general against a new cryptocurrency company. The enforcement action sends the price of all digital assets plummeting by 20 percent in a matter of hours. Your client still meets all of the closing conditions, but the client’s value, which consists largely of digital assets, has just taken a huge hit and the buyer’s counsel is telling you that her client is going to walk away from the deal unless your client drops the price. A reverse breakup fee will help to lessen the buyer’s willingness to run from the transaction and may also help your client recoup costs incurred in the event the buyer does walk away. Litigators representing a buyer or seller should also pay particular attention to whether the conditions in a breakup fee or reverse breakup fee clause have been satisfied.
  • Heightened Importance of Stock Terms: Transactional lawyers should give extra consideration to the applicable law and venue selection provisions in the deal documents. Some states, e.g., Wyoming, among others, have adopted more crypto-friendly regulatory regimes than other states. Consequently, transaction lawyers should consider the pros and cons of each viable state law. And, corporate attorneys should consider obtaining review of deal documents by experienced cryptocurrency litigators who can help position the transaction as best as possible in case of future litigation.
  • Last, transaction lawyers should consider the appropriateness of a mandatory arbitration provision. Arbitration has its drawbacks, e.g., the cost of the arbitrator, absence of clear rules for discovery, restricted appeal rights, etc., but the benefits of arbitration may be particularly helpful when dealing with a digital asset M&A dispute. For example, the parties can make their proceedings confidential, which can avoid the disclosure of trade secrets or other proprietary information in public court proceedings. Further, in the highly technical field of cryptocurrencies, the parties have greater latitude to ensure that the proceeding is adjudicated by an arbitrator with pertinent knowledge of and/or experience in digital assets or blockchain technology.

Of course, the foregoing is not an exhaustive list of the ways to reduce risk in digital asset M&A deals. Other terms and conditions in the transaction contracts for a digital asset M&A deal should not escape scrutiny. Representations and warranties, contract exhibits and schedules should be tailored to the deal and the nature of digital assets in play. Due diligence is also an especially important component of risk mitigation since the nature of digital assets makes for a more difficult diligence process than a traditional transaction. Regardless of which contractual provisions are used, litigators and transactional lawyers should both be aware of and understand the heightened risk of a dispute in the volatile world of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

ARTICLE BY Thomas H. Wagner of Polsinelli PC.
For more on cryptocurrency, see the Financial Institutions & Banking law page on the National Law Review.

The E-2 Visa: A Potentially Useful Tool in Cross-Border M&As

Changes to corporate structure, including mergers and acquisitions, can have enormous implications for the U.S. immigration status of key workers and potential new hires. When a U.S. company is acquired or formed because of a merger, and is majority-owned by a foreign entity or foreign national from an E-2 country, the E-2 Investor Visa may be available. In addition, the E-2 visa provides protections to cross-border investment between the two countries and the option to resolve investment disputes through international arbitration.

Who Can Use the E-2 Visa?

Typically, the E-2 visa is available to the principal investor as well as managerial, executive, or essential-skilled employees with the same nationality as the E-2 country, and the nationality of the majority owners of the E-2 company. To qualify, E-2 applicants must show they are actively investing or have invested a substantial amount of capital in a bona fide enterprise. An E-2 visa, issued for five years at the U.S. consulate overseas, allows an E-2 spouse to work and any E-2 children under 21 to study in the United States.

What Must the E-2 Visa Applicant Show?

The E-2 applicant, who submits the application directly to the E-2 visa offices at the pertinent U.S. consulate overseas, must include evidence of: 1) ownership; 2) nationality; 3) the substantial investment at risk explaining the path of the E-2 investment funds; 4) the corporate documentation of the E-2 company — in the cross border M&A transaction, this includes the purchase of the acquisition or the formation of the newly-merged company, evidencing 50 percent or more ownership by treaty national or nationals; 5) the applicant’s qualifications to direct and operate the E-2 company; 6) a detailed and complete business plan if the newly-formed U.S. company has existed for less than a year; and any other evidence the U.S. consulate requires.

How Does the U.S. Government Determine an Investment Is ‘At Risk’?

General E-2 visa processing considerations for founders, principal investors, or employees (those to be transferred from overseas or new hires) are to ensure that the substantial investment be one that is “at risk.” This means the capital must be subject to partial or total loss if investment fortunes reverse. Further, the E-2 applicant must show irrevocable commitment of funds to the U.S. E-2 company. The U.S. immigration rules allow the placement of funds in escrow pending approval of the E-2 visa with a legal mechanism that irrevocably commits funds but also protects investors if the E-2 application is denied. Commercial investments must be active (not passive), entrepreneurial, and cannot be made in nonprofit institutions.

What Constitutes a ‘Substantial’ Investment?

To establish that an investment is substantial, the U.S. Department of State uses a relative proportionality test that considers the amount of qualifying capital invested weighed against the total cost of purchasing or creating the E-2 company; the amount of capital normally considered sufficient to ensure the investor’s financial commitment to the success of the E-2 company; and the magnitude of investment to support the likelihood that the investor will successfully develop and/or direct the E-2 company. Thus, the lower the cost of the E-2 company, the higher, proportionally, the investment must be to be considered “substantial.” The E-2 investment cannot be marginal to only support the E-2 principal. The January 2017 Buy American, Hire American executive order is now an oft-cited requirement in E-2 investment applications. The E-2 investment must show the potential for hiring Americans and inducing economic growth in the area of the E-2 investment.

Conclusion

The U.S. government is more closely vetting immigration applications, and work visas like the E-2 in particular. To determine whether the E-2 visa may be the right option in light of a cross-border M&A, it is critical that foreign nationals consult with their immigration counsel.

©2011-2018 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

Sizing Up the Competition: Antitrust Enforcement and the Bazaarvoice Ruling

Analysis_Group_logo_1200x900px

High-profile or highly profitable firms are no longer the sole targets of post-merger divestitures by antitrust enforcers. Today, firms that have little or no revenues, including some that operate in emergent industries with little or negative profits, also find themselves subject to merger inquiries, as demonstrated by the recent merger review of Bazaarvoice’s 2012 non-reportable $160 million acquisition of PowerReviews. 

Bazaarvoice merger antitrust

These competing firms were both operating at a loss in the relatively small Ratings and Review (R&R) market. Yet, the nature of competition in the industry and the industry’s potential importance to adjacent industries – combined with statements by the acquirer’s executives prior to the transaction – attracted the scrutiny of antitrust enforcers. Ultimately, Bazaarvoice agreed to divest all of its PowerReviews assets, including employees and client base, to a small competitor, Viewpoints – which had initially entered R&R space by building a solution for Sears – for $30 million.  

This article considers the economic arguments and evidence used by the court to reach its decision in United States v. Bazaarvoice.

Background

R&R platforms offer an online interface for customer reviews of different products, which can help to drive sales, increase product visibility, and offer valuable information on customers to brands and retailers, allowing brands to respond to customer concerns in real time. Leading platforms offer clients the following services: confirmation of the authenticity of customer reviews; moderation of reviews (e.g., removing offensive language); syndication that combines reviews from multiple retailers to increase the visibility of a product; data on retailers and social media analytics to support marketing; and search engine optimization to drive traffic. Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews offered clients all of these services, but Bazaarvoice generally provided more customizable features at higher price points to larger clients. Bazaarvoice offered human moderation of customer reviews, for example, while PowerReviews offered only automated monitoring.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) applied competitive analysis that ignored more traditional focuses on supracompetitive pricing, high margins, and immediate harm to consumers.

In 2012, Bazaarvoice had 800 employees and revenue of $106.1 million; in 2011, the privately held PowerReviews employed just 80 people and reportedly had revenue of $11.5 million. Although PowerReviews did not publicly report its profitability, according to Bazaarvoice executives, the smaller firm was operating at a loss. Similarly, Bazaarvoice itself reported consistently negative operating margins in 2011–2013 that were no higher than -23%.

At the time of the court ruling (January 2014), actual competition from other platforms in the R&R market was marginal, composed primarily of a handful of start-ups with inferior products or of larger firms that offered complementary products. Direct competitors like Pluck, Gigya, Practical Data, Rating-system.com, and European Reevoo were tiny, with few customers and weak services. More established firms that might have acted as potential competitors, such as Google, Facebook, Oracle, and Salesforce, were more interested in partnering with Bazaarvoice than in competing in the R&R market. Meanwhile, Amazon accounted for 28% of e-commerce revenue and maintained (and still does, as of August 2014) its own R&R platform, which was not available to competing retailers. 

Competitive arguments and evidence 

In its review of the transaction, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) applied competitive analysis that ignored more traditional focuses on supracompetitive pricing, high margins, and immediate harm to consumers. The analysis focused instead on the nature of competition in the R&R industry, including barriers to entry and the anticompetitive potential for long-run harm to consumers as detailed in the assessments of Bazaarvoice senior staff.

Low margins: The parties were losing money. Their profits were a far cry from the supracompetitive profits often associated with companies targeted by antitrust litigation. In previous antitrust cases against Microsoft, for example, the company’s margins on Windows and MS Office had played a significant role at trial. Similarly, the potential for enhanced market power and exceptional margins contributed to the DOJ decision to prevent Microsoft from acquiring Intuit in 1994–1995.

Barriers to entry: Bazaarvoice’s extensive syndication network, in particular, became a major component of the case. The DOJ argued that it would be extremely difficult for competitors to develop a comparable syndication network of retailers and brands, allowing Bazaarvoice to leverage anticompetitive economies of scale across many important clients. These advantages, combined with the difficulty of switching from one R&R platform to another – as demonstrated by the reluctance of PowerReviews customers to switch to the Bazaarvoice platform – would effectively block new entrants from the market. While the DOJ’s argument was much less convincing with respect to other barriers to entry, such as the company’s technology and reputation, clearly antitrust enforcers had seized on important elements of the relationship between Bazaarvoice’s value proposition and the growth of the R&R market.

Bad documents: These potential anticompetitive implications were explicitly referenced in Bazaarvoice’s own internal documents, which became instrumental in court. The firm’s current CEO remarked that there were “literally, no other competitors” beyond PowerReviews, and the former CEO wrote that after the proposed acquisition of PowerReviews, Bazaarvoice would have “[n]o meaningful direct competitor.” Bazaarvoice senior executives openly acknowledged that syndication networks created high barriers to entry in the R&R industry and clearly described that the elimination of Bazaarvoice’s “primary competitor” would provide “relief from price erosion.” The DOJ seized on these documents, arguing that the merger would increase prices and eliminate the “substantial price discounts” that retailers and manufacturers received as a result of competition between Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews.

Court’s opinion 

In this case, the court noted these apparent competitive weaknesses and remained on the lookout for changes in the R&R market. In fact, in the 18 months from the time of the acquisition on June 12, 2012, until the case’s ultimate outcome on January 8, 2014, the only post-merger evidence that was considered dispositive by the court was
the absence of serious entry to the market. The court explicitly rejected the use of pricing data, suggesting that it could be manipulated. The same pricing data that regulators might have expected to rise above competitive levels – and that therefore could have created space for new entrants in the R&R market at lower price points – was viewed as suspect. The DOJ case was structured instead around the absence of a credible entry threat in the R&R space, despite Bazaarvoice’s annual margins of around -30%. 

For Bazaarvoice, the challenge was less about responding to customer concerns or even to actual prices than it was about addressing the incendiary internal paper trail left by the company’s senior executives.

Discussion 

The court’s focus on the entry threat and its dismissal of pricing policies is curious, because the two issues are highly related. In an industry characterized by prices so low that the market leader is highly unprofitable, new firms have no incentive to enter. To become profitable, Bazaarvoice would have had to double its prices, and yet no evidence presented in the case demonstrated that entry would be impossible at that much higher price level. Surprisingly, the court did not connect these two issues in a meaningful way.

For Bazaarvoice, the challenge was less about responding to customer concerns or even to actual prices than it was about addressing the incendiary internal paper trail left by the company’s senior executives. In fact, as the testifying expert for Bazaarvoice/PowerReviews, Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh, pointed out, customers expressed no reservations about the merger, and Bazaarvoice had not raised prices. Ultimately, the court discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments related to the absence of actual anticompetitive effects, noting that the firms could moderate their behavior while under antitrust scrutiny and focused instead on the firm’s own internal documents, which had detailed a plan to block competitive pressure. Bazaarvoice found itself fighting its own internal assessment of the competitive effects of the proposed merger, in addition to the DOJ’s economic arguments. The internal documents and emails were far more difficult to explain away than the economic circumstances, resulting in a full divestiture.

ARTICLE BY

Rebecca Kirk Fair
 
OF 
Analysis Group, Inc.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Wins Appeal: ProMedica Merger with St. Luke’s Not Allowed

vonBriesen

On April 22, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) finding that the merger between Ohio-basedProMedica Health System, Inc. (ProMedica) and St. Luke’s Hospital (St. Luke’s), an independent community hospital that operates in the one of the same counties as ProMedica, would adversely affect competition in violation of federal antitrust law. Prior to the merger, ProMedica and St. Luke’s comprised two of the four hospital systems in Lucas County, Ohio. After the two systems merged, ProMedica held more than 50% of the applicable market share.

Accordingly, in 2011 the FTC ordered ProMedica to divest itself of St. Luke’s. ProMedica appealed the FTC’s order to the Sixth Circuit. In a unanimous opinion, the Sixth Circuit denied ProMedica’s petition to overturn the FTC order, citing concerns about anti-competitive behavior and the ability of ProMedica to unduly influence reimbursement rates with healthcare insurance companies.

The full 22-page court opinion may be accessed here.

Article By:

Patrick J. Cannon
Of: 
von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Tips for Success in the Current Mergers and Acquisitions Environment

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

If you have been waiting for a recovery in the Merger & Acquisition environment in the defense and government services industries, we have bad news: you will most likely have to wait until well into 2014. By almost all accounts, the M&A market has yet to snap out of the doldrums.

Back in 2008 and 2009, we could blame the problem on a dearth of available financing; however, today there is plenty of cash on corporate balance sheets. Lenders are more than willing to finance good deals. So, what gives? The reasons are diverse, including concerns over declining federal budgets, uncertain government programs, questions about the sustainability of global growth, and the increasing cost of business resulting from the vast array and complexity of government regulations, to name just a few.

With M&A volume meandering sideways, the fact that valuations are stagnant should also come as no surprise. Middle market M&A multiples continue to remain in the 4X to 6X EBITDA range, and sometimes higher in the case of acquisitions by strategic buyers.

While this all might sound depressing, it should not be. For companies with an interest in growing through M&A, conditions could not be much better. Between cash balances and available credit, there is plenty of financing available to fund good deals. Next, the Federal Reserve and other central banks have indicated a commitment to maintain low interest rate environments. Additionally, Baby Boomer retirements and generational transitions in family-owned businesses should continue to result in buying opportunities. Finally, the absence of frothy valuations typically present at this stage of a recovery have not yet materialized, increasing the likelihood of M&A success (when measured in terms of return on investment). This last point is particularly important, because M&A failure rates tend to increase dramatically as asset prices increase.  Additionally, many larger companies are opting to divest non-core business units.

Despite the favorable environment, it is important to remember that M&A is fraught with risk. To maximize your probability of success, keep the following points in mind:

  1. Make sure you have an M&A strategy. Clearly defining business objectives you intend to accomplish through M&A can help identify a broad pool of targets, sift through those targets to identify the best fit, and minimize merger premiums.
  2. Start small. Successful acquirers tend to grow through a large number of small acquisitions, rather than “betting the farm” on a single transaction.
  3. Set a walk-away price. The best acquirers set a maximum price early on and stick to it.
  4. No stone unturned.  Make sure you and your advisors do as much due diligence as possible before an acquisition, so you can make an informed investment decision and arrive at a proper valuation.  In addition to thoroughly understanding the business and the financial aspects of the transaction (the target’s assets, revenue streams, liabilities, cost analyses and projections), also make sure you have a firm grasp on the risks involved in the transaction, and mitigate them to the best of your ability.
  5. Do not fall in love with the deal. Negotiating a deal is exciting, but walking away is not. Call it what you want—pride, hubris, delirium—but the sheer desire to close the deal often leads incredibly brilliant people to do incredibly stupid things. Hit the pause button from time to time and ask the advice of those you trust.
Article By:

Michelle DiCintio
Of: 
Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.

Judge Rules in Favor of DOJ Finding Bazaarvoice / PowerReviews Merger Anticompetitive (Department of Justice)

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

 

On January 8, 2014, Judge Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of competitor PowerReviews violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  The ruling was in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).  The public version of the opinion was made available on January 10.  In its self-described “necessarily lengthy opinion,” which spans 141 pages, the court ultimately found that the facts overwhelmingly showed the acquisition will have anticompetitive effects and that Bazaarvoice did not overcome the government’s prima facie case.  The case included 40 witnesses at trial, more than 100 depositions and 980 exhibits.  Dr. Carl Shapiro testified as DOJ’s economist and Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh testified on behalf of Bazaarvoice/PowerReviews.  The court noted that the case presented some difficult issues, including that there were no generally accepted “market share statistics covering the sales of R&R solutions or social commerce solutions and no perfect way to measure market shares.”  And while neither side presented flawless analyses, the court found Dr. Shapiro’s approaches more persuasive than those of Dr. Shehadeh.

Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews each offered sophisticated “R&R platforms.”  R&R platforms provide a user interface and review form for the collection and display of user-generated content (i.e., user reviews) on the product page of a commercial website where the product can be purchased.  Often these are in the form of star ratings and open-ended reviews in a text box.  R&R platforms increase sales for the retailer and have a variety of different features.  The court noted that many on-ine retailers view an R&R platform as “necessary.”  Before the merger, Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews offered similar products and features and targeted similar customers.

The court found that the relevant product market was the narrow “R&R platforms,” rather than the broader “social commerce tools” or “eCommerce platforms.”  The court went through many popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, explaining why each was not a substitute for these R&R platforms.  In this relevant market, the court found that PowerReviews was Bazaarvoice’s only real competitor, and thus the merger “would eliminate Bazaarvoice’s only meaningful commercial competitor.”

At the end of the opinion, the court commented on the role of antitrust “in rapidly changing high-tech markets.”  It noted that there is a debate as to whether antitrust is properly suited to assess competitive effects in these markets.  The court declined to take sides and stated that its “mission is to assess the alleged antitrust violations presented, irrespective of the dynamism of the market at issue.”

The case now moves to the remedy phase.  In its complaint, the DOJ requested that the court order Bazaarvoice to divest assets originally possessed by either Bazaarvoice and/or PowerReviews to create a viable, competing business.   However, as Judge Orrick noted, 18 months after the merger, it may not be so simple to divest assets.  The judge scheduled a conference for January 22 with the parties to discuss a possible remedy.

There are several lessons to be gathered from this case.  First, the Bazaarvoice litigation is further evidence that the antitrust agencies are not shy about litigating mergers they feel are anticompetitive.  The DOJ invested significant resources and time – including three full weeks at trial in California – into litigating the case, beginning with its investigation that it launched two days after the firms closed their transaction on June 12, 2012.  It has established a significant record of bringing, and winning, merger cases.

Second, this is a significant event, having a federal district court evaluate a consummated merger transaction.  While the agencies have challenged many non-reportable transactions, almost all have been resolved by consent order, or litigated through the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) in-house administrative hearing process (where, not surprisingly, the FTC essentially always wins).  Accordingly, parties to a non-reportable transaction that raises significant antitrust risks should expect the agencies to investigate and, if warranted, litigate.

Third, the Court heavily discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments regarding lack of any actual anticompetitive effect, because the companies knew the DOJ was reviewing the deal and could moderate their behavior.  The court discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments that none of the 104 customers who were deposed complained that the merger has hurt them.  The court stated “it would be a mistake to rely on customer testimony about effects of the merger for several reasons.”  Among the reasons the court included was “Bazaarvoice’s business conduct after the merger was likely tempered by the government’s immediate investigation; the customers were not privy to most of the evidence presented to the Court, including that of the economic experts; many of the customers had paid little or no attention to the merger; and each had an idiosyncratic understanding of R&R based on the priorities of their company and their different levels of knowledge, sophistication, and experience.”  Thus, while raising prices after a transaction provides strong evidence to support the government’s case, the lack of a price increase does not necessarily support the merging parties’ defense.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the case shows the need to be circumspect in preparing ordinary course documents.  Aside from the fact that in reportable transactions, the DOJ and FTC are entitled to “4(c)” and “4(d)” documents about the transaction, once a second request is issued or discovery begins, documents created in the ordinary course of business are discoverable.  This includes Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analyses, board meeting minutes, business and strategic plans, market and market share analyses, and competitive assessments.  In this case, the court found the ordinary course documents, and particularly those made by the companies’ executives, some of the most persuasive evidence.  The court quoted extensively from the documents and cited numerous documents from Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews that showed that the parties viewed each other as their primary competitor, that there were no other strong competitors in this market, that the two companies operated in essentially a duopoly, and that the intent of the merger was to eliminate a primary competitor.  Despite the parties’ efforts to explain away these documents, the court was not persuaded.  Thus, it is important that companies carefully consider what to include in documents and e-mails, and assume that any non-privileged material may be discovered.

The agencies’ aggressive pursuit of perceived anticompetitive, non-reportable transactions places a premium on parties’ evaluating the antitrust risk.

The public version of the court’s opinion can be found here:http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f302900/302948.pdf

Article by:

Carrie G. Amezcua

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery