Tag: Clayton Act

Kroger/Albertsons Ruling Provides Lessons for Merger Remedy Divestitures

On December 10, a federal court in Oregon issued a preliminary injunction against Kroger’s proposed $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons, which would have been the largest supermarket merger in US history (Albertsons terminated the merger agreement after the ruling).1 The Federal Trade Commission, the District of Columbia, and eight States filed the suit in February 2024, alleging that the transaction would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The opinion by Judge Adrienne Nelson tackled a number of interesting antitrust issues, including the government’s allegation that the merger would reduce competition not only for grocery store sales but also for union grocery store labor. However, one of the most instructive aspects of the opinion is the court’s rejection of the defendants’ proposed divestiture package.

We have outlined the scope of the competitive problem that the divestiture needed to mitigate, the parameters of the proposed divestiture, and the deficiencies the court found. Companies assuming that divestitures will eliminate regulatory concerns about the anticompetitive impact of a transaction should examine whether there is a divestiture package that is commercially acceptable and that can account for the concerns Judge Nelson highlighted. The antitrust agencies and courts will almost certainly use this latest judicial decision as guidance when evaluating such proposals.

Competitive Problem

The government’s economic expert offered what the court found to be a persuasive market concentration analysis showing the merger would be presumptively anticompetitive in 1,574 local geographic markets for “supermarkets” and 1,785 local geographic markets for “large format stores” (i.e., traditional supermarkets and supercenters, natural and gourmet food stores, club stores, and limited assortment stores). The court also found evidence (ordinary course documents and witness testimony) of substantial head-to-head competition between the merging firms bolstered the government’s case. Finally, the court credited the government’s expert’s analysis showing that the loss of head-to-head competition would lead to price increases at numerous stores. The government thus put forth a multiprong prima facie showing that the merger would lessen competition substantially. On rebuttal, the defendants first sought to establish that competitive entry and merger efficiencies would mitigate the merger’s anticompetitive effects, but the court was not convinced. The defendants then attempted to show that their proposed divestiture remedy would solve the competitive concerns.

Divestiture Proposal

Defendants entered into an agreement — contingent on the merger closing — to divest 96 Kroger stores and 483 Albertsons stores to a third party. The proposed third-party divestiture buyer is primarily a wholesaler but has acquired retail chains in the past and currently operates approximately 25 stores. The divestiture package also included ownership of four store banners, a license to use two other banners in certain states, ownership of five private label brands, a temporary license to use two other brands, six distribution centers, and one dairy manufacturing plant. A transition services agreement provided the divestiture buyer the right to use certain of the defendants’ services, technology, and data for periods ranging from six months to four years.

Deficiencies

The court explained numerous ways in which the Kroger-Albertsons divestiture package was inadequate to sufficiently mitigate the anticompetitive effects of the merger and overcome the government’s showing of a substantial lessening of competition:

  • Many markets unaddressed – The court noted that 113 of the presumptively unlawful markets did not contain even a single store to be divested, meaning the divestiture would have done nothing to change the merger’s anticompetitive effects in those markets. (The high number of unaddressed markets was in part a function of the fact that the defendants’ economic expert utilized a market definition method and applied market concentration presumption thresholds that differed from those the government advanced and the court adopted.)
  • Many markets insufficiently addressed – Other markets contained divestiture stores, but those divestitures were insufficient to take away a presumption of harm. Crediting the government’s economic expert, the court noted that even if all the proposed divestitures were perfectly successful, the merger would still have been presumptively unlawful in 1,002 local supermarket markets and 551 large format store markets based on market concentration levels.
  • Risk of unsuccessful divestitures – The court also agreed with the government’s analysis showing that if divested stores were to lose sales or close, the number of presumptively problematic markets would rise significantly. For example, if the divested supermarkets were to lose 10 percent of their sales, the number of presumptively unlawful markets would increase from 1,002 to 1,035. If they lose 30 percent of their sales, the number would increase to 1,276.
  • Mixed and matched assets – The divestiture package did not represent an existing, standalone, fully functioning company but rather a mix of stores, banners, private labels, and other assets. This meant the buyer would have had to rebanner 286 of the 579 divested stores (and for some of these stores, the buyer would not be acquiring any banner currently used in the state). The court cited testimony from the government’s expert in retail operations and consumer shopping behavior, as well as other witnesses, explaining that rebannering is complicated and risky. The divestiture buyer also would have eventually lost access to many Kroger and Albertsons private label brands that customers are familiar with and would need to replace those with new private label products. The court noted witness testimony emphasizing the importance of private label brand equity and recounting the time required to launch a new private label brand.
  • Divestiture size – The court expressed concern that with only 604 total stores (25 existing stores plus the 579 divested stores), the divestiture buyer may not have replaced the competitive intensity lost from Kroger and Albertsons, each of which had thousands of stores.
  • Divestiture buyer’s experience – The court was concerned that the divestiture buyer had no experience running a large portfolio of retail grocery stores. The 579 divestiture stores included hundreds of pharmacies and fuel centers, whereas the buyer’s current 25 stores include only one pharmacy and no fuel centers. The court also noted that the buyer’s experience offering private label products was much more limited than what the divestiture stores demand and that the buyer currently lacks any retail media capabilities, which would have taken three years to set up.
  • Divestiture buyer’s track record – The buyer has made divestiture purchases in the past, which the court noted have not been successful. Specifically, the buyer acquired 334 retail grocery stores between 2001 and 2012, but only three remained under its operation by the end of 2012 (the rest were closed or sold off). The court also cited evidence that the buyer’s current stores are performing below expectations.
  • Transfer of employees – Approximately 1,000 Albertsons employees agreed to transfer to the divestiture buyer, including Albertsons’ current Chief Operating Officer, who had experience with prior divestiture integrations. The court found, however, that these transfers would not have fully mitigated the buyer’s inexperience and lack of success in grocery retail and could not overcome difficulties inherent in the selection of assets and structure of the transition services agreement in the divestiture package.
  • Divestiture buyer’s independence – The court viewed the transition services agreement as broad in services and time. It noted that the buyer would remain interdependent with the merged firm for many years. The court expressed particular concern over the fact that Kroger would have provided sales forecasting data and a base pricing plan to the buyer, which the buyer could have adjusted only by communicating with Kroger’s “clean room.”
1 Federal Trade Commission v. Kroger Co. & Albertsons Cos., Inc., 2024 WL 5053016, No. 3:24-cv-00347 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2024).
©2024 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
For more on the FTC, visit the NLR Antitrust Trade Regulation section

DOJ, FTC, DOL, and NLRB Join Forces and Announce Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Issues in Merger Investigations

On August 28, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, which enforces the US antitrust laws including the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act and other laws and regulations prohibiting unfair methods of competition (together, Antitrust Agencies), along with the US Department of Labor (DOL) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (together, Labor Agencies), announced that they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Issues in Merger Investigations (MOU).
The MOU took effect on August 28 and expires in five years, unless it is extended or terminated upon written agreement of each of the agencies.

Purpose of the MOU

The MOU outlines a collaborative initiative between the signatory agencies to assist the Antitrust Agencies with labor issues that may arise during the course of antitrust merger and acquisition (M&A) investigations, commenced under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR). The HSR requires that parties to certain large M&As provide information to the Antitrust Agencies prior to the transaction’s consummation, which allows these agencies to analyze the anticipated transaction(s) and provide greater certainty to the parties regarding potential antitrust concerns.

From a labor perspective, these investigations may aim to evaluate whether the effect of a merger or acquisition could substantially lessen competition for labor. The stated goal of this MOU is to protect employees and promote fair competition in labor markets. Specifically, the MOU outlines methods by which the Labor Agencies may aid or advise the Antitrust Agencies on potential labor issues identified during the course of these evaluations. These methods include the following.

1. Labor Information Sharing

The MOU outlines various ways in which the Antitrust Agencies may work with the Labor Agencies to gather information used to evaluate potential impacts of M&As on labor markets. These include:

  1. Soliciting information from relevant worker stakeholders and organizations.
  2. Seeking the production of information and data with respect to labor markets.
  3. Searching publicly available sources of information made available by the Labor Agencies.
  4. Seeking production of non-public information and data related to labor markets from the Labor Agencies.

2. Providing Training and Technical Assistance

Labor Agencies agree to provide technical assistance and training to personnel from the Antitrust Agencies related to subject matter under their jurisdictions. For example, the NLRB will train personnel from Antitrust Agencies on labor-related issues such as the duty to bargain in good faith, successor bargaining obligations, and unfair labor practices. Additionally, the Antitrust Agencies may seek technical assistance on labor and employment law matters in merger reviews, including in the resolution of labor market merger investigations.

3. Collaborative Meetings

The Labor Agencies and Antitrust Agencies will seek to meeting biannually to discuss the implementation and coordination of activities outlined in the MOU.

This MOU expands upon collaborative efforts amongst the agencies and builds upon several MOUs executed in 2022 and 2023. MOUs between the DOJ and DOL, DOJ and NLRB, DOL and FTC, and FTC and NLRB all indicate that the purpose and scope of the agreements are to “strengthen the Agencies’ partnership through greater coordination in information sharing, coordinated investigations and enforcement activity, training, education, and outreach.”

Takeaways

This multi-agency agreement further emphasizes the current administration’s focus on protecting employees from alleged unfair methods of competition. This MOU is further evidence that antitrust regulators are looking at antitrust enforcement from a new perspective. Traditionally, Antitrust Agencies evaluated proposed M&As to identify potential risks of harm to consumers through the reduction of options or increased prices. Now, Antitrust Agencies appear to have turned their focus towards anticompetitive behaviors that may harm employees.

Employers interested or involved in an M&A deal should conduct thorough internal reviews to ensure compliance with both labor-related and fair competition laws. In the event of a review by the DOJ or FTC, employers should partner with experienced labor and employment lawyers to navigate through these investigations.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more on Merger Investigations, visit the NLR Mergers Acquisitions section

FTC Announces 2024 Thresholds for Merger Control Filings under HSR Act and Interlocking Directorates under the Clayton Act

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has increased the dollar jurisdictional thresholds necessary to trigger the reporting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (“HSR Act”), and the dollar value of each of the six filing fee thresholds; the revised thresholds will become effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. The daily maximum civil penalty for being in violation of the HSR Act has increased, and is, as of January 10, 2024, $51,744.

The FTC also increased the thresholds for interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act; these revised thresholds are in effect as of January 22, 2024.

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 proposed transaction 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 $119.5 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 $478 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 $119.5 million but not more than $478 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 $239 million in total assets or annual sales, and the other has at least $23.9 million in total assets or annual sales.

The full list of the revised thresholds is as follows:

Original Threshold 2023 Threshold 2024 Revised Threshold
$10 million $22.3 million $23.9 million
$50 million $111.4 million $119.5 million
$100 million $222.7 million $239 million
$110 million $245 million $262.9 million
$200 million $445.5 million $478 million
$500 million $1,113.7 million $1,195 million
$1 billion $2,227.4 million $2,390 million

The filing fees for reportable transactions and the six filing fee tiers also have been updated, as follows:

Filing Fee Size of Transaction under the Act
$30,000 For transactions valued in excess of $119.5 million but less than $173.3 million
$105,000 For transactions valued at $173.3 million or greater but less than $536.5 million
$260,000 For transactions valued at $536.5 million or greater but less than $1,073 million
$415,000 For transactions valued at $1,073 million or greater but less than $2,146 million
$830,000 For transactions valued at $2,146 million or greater but less than $5,365 million
$2.335 million For transactions valued at $5,365 million or more

The filing fee tiers, introduced in 2023, are adjusted annually to reflect changes in the GNP for the previous year.

The HSR Act’s dollar thresholds are only part of the analysis to determine whether a particular transaction must be reported to the FTC and DOJ; a full analysis requires consideration of exemptions to the filing requirements that may be available to an acquiror. Failure to notify the FTC and DOJ under the HSR Act remains subject to a statutory penalty of up to $51,744 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) each of the “interlocked” corporations has combined capital, surplus, and undivided profits of more than $48,559,000 (up from $45,257,000); (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 A corporate interlock does not violate the statute if (1) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $4,855,900 (up from $4,525,700); (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 DOJ has been active recently in identifying and achieving remediation of interlocks that may violate Section 8.3

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.

3 Department of Justice, Two Pinterest Directors Resign from Nextdoor Board of Directors in Response to Justice Department’s Ongoing Enforcement Efforts Against Interlocking Directorates (Aug. 16, 2023); Department of Justice, Justice Department’s Ongoing Section 8 Enforcement Prevents More Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates (Mar. 9, 2023); Department of Justice, Directors Resign from the Boards of Five Companies in Response to Justice Department Concerns about Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates (Oct. 19, 2022).

© Copyright 2024 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more on Merger Control Filings, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Constitutionality of FTC’s Structure and Procedures Under SCOTUS Review

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have authority to enforce Section 7 of the Clayton Act by investigating and challenging mergers where the effect of such transaction “may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

However, the enforcement paths of these two federal agencies differ markedly. DOJ pursues all aspects of its enforcement actions in the federal court system. The FTC, on the other hand, only uses the federal district courts to seek injunctive relief, but otherwise follows its own internal administrative process that combines the investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency.

Whether a transaction is subjected to DOJ or FTC review is determined by a “clearance” process with no public visibility. To many, including entities in the health care industry—and, in particular, parties to hospital mergers that are now routinely “cleared” to the FTC (exemplified by two recently filed enforcement actions against hospitals in New Jersey and Utah)—this process appears to be arbitrary. It is also particularly daunting because the FTC has not lost an administrative action in over a quarter-century. Because of the one-sided nature and duration of these administrative proceedings, most enforcement actions brought against merging hospitals rise or fall at the injunctive relief stage. This process also appears to embolden the FTC into taking unprecedented actions, including the pursuit of enforcement remedies against parties to abandoned transactions.

However, this may soon change. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a case that raises a forceful constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure and procedures. The Supreme Court recently agreed to combine the briefing schedule of this case with a similar case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the administrative process of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The outcome of these cases may fundamentally alter the FTC’s enforcement process.

Article By E. John Steren and Patricia M. Wagner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more antitrust and trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.