Antitrust Chief Details Accomplishments of Last Two Years

This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.

Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, told attendees of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event on June 24 in Washington, D.C. that after more than two years on the job, "the time is ripe to examine whether the Antitrust Division has been steadfast in ensuring vigorous enforcement of the antitrust law, as I promised upon confirmation." Varney talked about civil merger and non-merger enforcement, among other topics.

Merger Enforcement

With respect to merger enforcement, Varney said the Antitrust Division was committed to going to court “where the parties have been unwilling to resolve the anticompetitive aspects of their transactions.”

Two current merger challenges were cited: H&R Block Inc.’s proposed acquisition of the maker of TaxACT do-it-yourself tax preparation software, and the combination of point-of-sale (POS) terminal sellers VeriFone Systems Incorporated and Hypercom Corporation. She also noted the recent settlement in a third matter involving the acquisition of a Tyson Foods Harrisonburg chicken processing complex by George’s, Inc.

Varney also discussed mergers and acquisitions that involved vertical theories. Among the transactions that have arisen in the past few years were: ticket seller Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.’s acquisition of concert promoter Live Nation, Inc.; a joint venture between Comcast Corp. and General Electric Co.’s subsidiary NBC Universal Inc.; and Google’s acquisition of ITA Software Inc.—a company that develops and licenses a search software product used by the travel industry to perform flight searches and offer airfare comparison and booking websites.

The transactions demonstrate that “business is frequently looking for strategic acquisitions that offer the synergies and efficiencies presented by combining various levels of production.”

As with the purely horizontal transactions, the Antitrust Division reviewed these transactions "in light of their specific facts and market conditions and evaluated the competitive harms," said Varney. "In each case, we concluded that the transactions, as proposed, would give rise to competitive harm, and while we were prepared to sue, the parties agreed to consent decrees that addressed our concerns."

Civil Non-Merger Enforcement

Varney also mentioned that the Antitrust Division remained active in civil non-merger enforcement. She pointed to two matters in ongoing litigation—the Antitrust Division’s lawsuit challenging Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Most Favored Nation Clauses with hospitals, and the Antitrust Division’s challenge to merchant fees in its lawsuit against American Express.

Another example of civil enforcement was the recent settlement in the Justice Department’s first case since 1999 challenging a monopolist with engaging in traditional anticompetitive unilateral conduct against United Regional Health Care System of Wichita Falls—a dominant health care provider.

Competition Advocacy

The antitrust chief discussed competition advocacy and regulatory outreach across the government. The Division works with a broad range of federal and state agencies to promote competition principles in important industries, including agriculture, telecommunications, energy, financial services, and healthcare.

“Among my competition advocacy priorities when I arrived at the Division was to explore the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in American agriculture, and this required collaboration at many levels,” said Varney, citing a series of workshops hosted by the Antitrust Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Division has worked collaboratively with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, said Varney.

An example of cooperation with other federal and state agencies has been the ongoing municipal bonds investigation. The Division played a “key role” in obtaining an agreement from Bank of America to pay $137.3 million in restitution and disgorgement to state and federal agencies for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids in the municipal bond derivatives market and as a condition of its admission into the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Corporate Leniency Program.

Bank of America entered into agreements with the SEC, the Internal Revenue Service, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 20 state attorneys general.

Text of the remarks (“Vigorously Enforcing the Antitrust Laws: Developments at the Division”) appear here on the Department of Justice Antitrust Division website.

Antitrust Division’s Activities Preserve and Promote Competition: Agency Official

This posting was written by Darius Sturmer, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter, and John W. Arden.

A report on the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's recent activities was presented by Carl Shapiro, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the Antitrust Division, on November 18 at the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Fall Forum in Washington, D.C.

In prepared remarks entitled “Update from the Antitrust Division,” Shapiro focused on the Division’s attempts to preserve and promote competition through criminal enforcement, civil non-merger enforcement, competition advocacy, and merger enforcement (including an explanation of the new Horizontal Merger Guidelines).

Criminal Cases

Shapiro observed that during Fiscal Year 2010, the Antitrust Division concentrated on “rooting out and prosecuting cartels and other collusive agreements.” It filed 60 criminal cases, involving 84 corporate and individual defendants, and obtained fines in excess of $550 million. While the fines obtained were down from previous years, "the Division's commitment to criminal enforcement remains steadfast," Shapiro said.

He added that of the individual defendants sentenced, 76% were given prison time, including an average 10-month prison term for foreign nationals, whose incarceration continues to be a priority of the Division.

Civil Non-Merger Suits

Shapiro stated that reviewing and challenging anticompetitive conduct “is a critical component of the Division’s mission to preserve and promote competition.” During Fiscal Year 2010, the Division resolved competitive concerns with negotiated consent decrees in four civil non-merger cases—U.S. v. Smithfield Foods and Standard Farms LLC (2010-1 Trade Cases ¶76,880); U.S. v. Idaho Orthopedic Society(2010-2 Trade Cases ¶77,142); U.S. v. Adobe Systems, Inc. (CCH Trade Regulation Reporter ¶50,982); and U.S. v. KeySpan Corporation (CCH Trade Regulation Reporter ¶50,975).

In addition, the Division filed civil antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and (together with seven states) against American Express, MasterCard, and Visa.

In the first suit, the Division challenged “most-favored nations” (MFN) clauses in Blue Cross’s agreements with hospitals that allegedly limit the discounts the hospitals can offer to Blue Cross’s competitors. These MFN clauses raise prices, prevent other insurers from entering the marketplace, and discourage hospital discounts, Shapiro said.

The second suit challenged rules, policies, and practices imposed by the three largest credit and charge card networks in the U.S. These rules “impede merchants from promoting or encouraging the use of a competing credit or charge card with lower acceptance fees,” he explained.

MasterCard and Visa were willing to resolve these antitrust concerns at the time the Division filed the compliant, agreeing to allow merchants to offer consumer discounts and rebates; express a preference for a particular credit card; promote particular cards through communications to customers; and communicate the cost incurred by the merchant when a consumer uses a particular credit card.

Litigation continues against American Express, which has stated its intention to fully litigate the matter.

Competition Advocacy

The official trumpeted the Antitrust Division's recent competition advocacy efforts, involving a wide range of industries and topics, including telecommunications, financial markets, health care, agriculture, and patents.

Shapiro highlighted the agency's involvement in a proposal by Delta and US Airways to swap more than 300 takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

The Division filed formal comments with the Department of Transportation, supporting a proposed DOT order that would permit the slot transfers, subject to the carriers’ disposal of 14 pairs of “slot interests” at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and 20 pairs of slot interests at LaGuardia Airport to “eligible new entrant and limited incumbent carriers.”

The divestiture of these slot interests eased concerns that the transaction would have reduced competition between Delta and US Airways on a number of routes at the two airports, thereby harming consumers.

Merger Enforcement

According to Shapiro, Hart Scott Rodino filings reached only 716 for Fiscal Year 2009, down from 2,201 during Fiscal Year 2007. Newly released figures show a 50% increase in Fiscal Year 2010 to 1,170. About 1.9% of the filings resulted in a Department of Justice Second Request. The Division challenged 19 mergers.

Shapiro discussed the Antitrust Division's recent issuance of revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The guidelines were the product of a lengthy and collaborative process with the Federal Trade Commission. The primary motivation behind their creation was to “promote transparency by describing more accurately how the Agencies actually evaluate horizontal mergers.”

He illustrated the principles articulated in the revised Guidelines through an analysis of the agency's investigation into the proposed merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines and of the agency's complaint challenging the merger proposal between Baker Hughes Inc. and BJ Services Company.

Text of the prepared remarks appears here on the Antitrust Division’s website.