merger cases legislation
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Merger Cases & Legislation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Merger Cases & Legislation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 169 Views
  • Uploaded on

Merger Cases & Legislation. Legislation Early Cases Cellar-Kefauver Cases Current Policy Towards Mergers. Major Legislation. Clayton Act (1914)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Merger Cases & Legislation' - creola


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
merger cases legislation

Merger Cases & Legislation

Legislation

Early Cases

Cellar-Kefauver Cases

Current Policy Towards Mergers

major legislation
Major Legislation
  • Clayton Act (1914)
    • Section 7 "no corporation ... shall acquire ... the stock... of another corporation ... where the effect ... may be to substantially lessen competition"
    • Thatcher vs. FTC (1926)
      • S. Ct ruled that physical assets not covered by Sec 7
      • Huge loophole -- shut down merger cases
legislation continued
Legislation, continued
  • Cellar Kefauver (1950)
    • Amendment to Section 7 of Clayton
      • Closed physical asset loophole
      • Clear attempt to strengthen hand of trustbusters
  • Hart-Scott Rodino (1976)
    • 30 days notice of impending acquisition to DOJ & FTC
    • Agencies can seek “preliminary injunction to stop the merger within 30 days
    • Smithfield Case (2002)
early cases
Early Cases
  • Northern Securities
  • Standard Oil
  • American Tobacco
  • US Steel
northern securities vs us 1904
Northern Securities vs US (1904)
  • Facts: 2 RR lines ran from St. Paul-Seattle
  • JP Morgan merged them into a holding company
  • Example of firms resorting to merger rather than forming cartels after per se rule was established
  • Recall Addyston Pipe (1897) – they merged too
  • 1st “Great Merger Wave” 1880-1905
northern securities decision
Northern Securities Decision
  • S. Court ruled the merger violated Sherman.
    • broad decision; language would preclude all horizontal mergers
  • Justice Harlan's decision:
  • "the principal, if not the sole, object" .. of the merger was that "competition between the constituent companies would cease. No scheme or device could more certainly come within the meaning of the act... or could more effectively and certainly suppress free competition between the constituent companies...... that is enough to bring it under the condemnation of the act (e.g. Sherman)."
northern securities decision7
Northern Securities Decision
  • Harlan, con’t: "every combination or conspiracy which would extinguish competition between otherwise competing railroads ... is made illegal by the act"
  • Holmes’ dissent: "a partnership between two stage drivers who had been competitors in driving across a state line, or two merchants once engaged in rival commerce, .... whether made after or before the act, if now continued, is a crime."
standard oil vs us 1911
Standard Oil vs US (1911)
  • Case is Well Known for 2 things:
  • 1) Breakup of Std Oil into "7 sisters"
  • 2) "Rule of Reason" treatment of mergers & monopolization charges
std oil facts
Std Oil: Facts
  • Rockefeller formed a historic monopoly through merger & internal growth
  • Merged 100s of independent refineries
  • Reputation as a "ruthlessly" efficient company, competitor, & negotiator
  • Standard controlled 90% of market by 1890
rockefeller s tactics
Rockefeller’s Tactics
  • Merger, but not on pernicious terms – there were many “front-runners” buying up firms to resell to Standard
  • Exclusionary contracts w/ shippers
    • Perhaps most serious charge: some contracts precluded railroads & pipelines from shipping oil of competitors
  • Alleged predation: note that Std's efficiency advantages not disputed; led to lower prices.
std oil decision
Std Oil: Decision
  • Case decided by "rule of reason," a three part test:
  • 1. some practices are illegal per se by their character (i.e. price fixing)
    • others practices like mergers can't be judged per se illegal & must be judged by their "reasonableness" as defined by
  • 2. intent: is the practice designed to restrain trade? if so, illegal
  • 3. inherent effect: regardless of intent, if the effect is sufficiently harmful, the court can rule the firm in violation of Sherman
std oil decision cont d
Std Oil: Decision (cont'd)
  • Found that monopoly was obtained both by superior efficiency & by practices designed to exclude competitors, including merger
  • Standard was "broken up"
    • 34 "successor" companies were the units in the original holding company
    • Shares of Standard -> shares of successors
    • the "7 sisters" were regional giants, now nominally independent
american tobacco 1911
American Tobacco (1911)
  • J.B. Duke’s tobacco monopoly
  • Allegedly built through local predation:
  • Merge or be ruined!
  • Decision dismembered Amer. Tobacco, as in Std.
  • But dissolutions did not eliminate market power!
    • Std: 7 regional firms, all w/ local market power
    • AT: 7 tobacco firms, cigarette, cigars, pipe, chewing, etc
us steel 1920
US Steel (1920)
  • US Steel was an archetype of MFM
  • "Gary Meetings" – met regularly with competitors to divide markets & set P
  • Court noted the absence of hostility from competitors relative to Std. Oil & Amer. Tobacco
    • could actions of US Steel then be “monopolization” of the sort proscribed by Sec. 2?
  • Not One of the Court’s better days
cellar kefauver cases
"Cellar-Kefauver Cases"
  • C-K Tightened Screws on Antitrust
    • Obvious case of small business protectionism
  • Three Cases Illustrate Severe Treatment of Mergers post C-K
    • Bethlehem Steel (1958)
    • Brown Shoe (1962)
    • Von's Grocery (1966)
u s vs bethlehem steel 1958
U.S. vs. Bethlehem Steel (1958)
  • Facts:
    • Merger of Bethlehem (PA firm) with Youngstown (Chicago)
    • Aim was entry in Chicago market
    • Mkt. Shares (national)
      • Youngstown 4.7%
      • Bethlehem 15%
      • US Steel 30%
b steel cont d
B Steel (cont'd)
  • Bethlehem's Case
    • Merger would strengthen competition in Chicago; create a more viable competitor
  • DOJ's Case
    • Market is national in scope
    • heavily concentrated already
    • Merger would reduce competition
  • Result
    • DOJ Wins
    • Precedent of tough anti-merger stance established
    • Bethlehem enters Chicago de novo
brown shoe v u s 1962
Brown Shoe v. U.S. (1962)
  • Facts:
  • Brown merged with Kinney in 1958; DOJ sued
  • The market was not heavily concentrated
    • Top 2 dozen manufacturers had 35% of sales
  • These firms were small:
  • Company Retail Share/Rank Manufact Share/Rank
  • Brown 2.1% / 4 4.0% / 4
  • Kinney 1.6% / 8 0.5% / 12
  • Brown was seeking retailing assets
brown shoe cont d
Brown Shoe, cont'd
  • DOJ's Case:
  • Narrow & selective market definition(s)
    • a) product: women's, men's, kid's shoes
    • b) geog locations: various cities
    • example: combined shares of kid's shoes was 49% in Dodge City, KS
    • many locations with 20% + combined shares
  • Foreclosure: Brown would "force" shoes into Kinney stores (vertical aspect of case)
brown shoe cont d20
Brown Shoe, cont'd
  • Decision:
  • Merger disallowed
  • Court appeared to take C-K arguments to heart
  • "If a merger achieving 5% control were now approved, we might be required to approve future merger efforts .. seeking similar market shares. The oligopoly Congress sought to avoid would then be furthered and it would be difficult to dissolve the combinations previously approved."
  • "We cannot fail to recognize Congress' desire to promote competition through the protection of viable, small, locally owned businesses. Congress appreciated that occasional higher costs and prices might result..."
brown shoe cont d21
Brown Shoe, cont'd
  • Impact:
  • 1) DOJ/Court attempting to stop monopoly trend "in its incipiency"
  • 2) Use of local sub-markets acceptable to address issue of competition (anti-merger)
  • 3) Forced scale economies to be realized by internal growth & destruction of assets
    • (probably slowed the growth of shoe chains a bit)
u s vs von s grocery 1966
U.S. vs. Von's Grocery (1966)
  • Von's tried to buy Shopping Bag
  • Owner of S. Bag was old w/ no heirs
    • Obvious need for transfer of assets
  • Both were LA grocers; unconcentrated
  • Company 1958 Mkt Share Rank
  • Von's 4.7% 3
  • Shopping Bag 4.2% 6
  • Safeway 8.0% 1
von s cont d
Von's (cont'd)
  • DOJ's Case:
  • Trend of concentration and growth of chains
  • 1947 1957
  • CR20 47% 57%
  • 1950 1961
  • Chains 96 150
  • Owner-ops 5,365 3,818
  • Decision: merger disallowed
  • "The basic purpose of the 1950 Cellar-Kefauver Act was to prevent economic concentration in the American economy by keeping a large number of small competitors in business."
current policy towards mergers
Current Policy Towards Mergers
  • End of the C-K Era:
    • Pres. Reagan's Overhaul of DOJ/FTC
  • Merger Guidelines of 1982
    • Improved approach to market definition
    • More permissive view of market concentration
  • C-K remains as law, but DOJ policy no longer pursues its aims
  • May explain why contests to injunctions are so rare
ad